If we had to have a video game dictator, he wouldn’t be the worst

I mean surely its a negative? You might like Xbox/switch in spite of the closed ecosystem, but wouldn’t they be better if they had an open ecosystem?

But then why spend so much money on a phone? I also don’t care about the specs of my phone, but this means I usually buy some $100 phone that gets the job done for a couple years.

I genuinely don’t see a reason why someone would buy an iPhone besides as a fashion accessory/ status symbol

Often the best opportunities in life are the scariest

total overkill

One might consider it the nuuklear option

MQTT is great! There are clients available in Python, JS, etc

Honestly her liking him or just pretending is irrelevant. Start by learning “offering to rub someone’s feet (or any other somewhat intimate touching) is NOT a good way to flirt, even if they do like you!”

To be fair, this applies to any bed

I’m currently reading a book which argues that “most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent”. It’s really good, highly recommend to anyone. It’s called “Human Kind” by Rutger Bregman

Well first, I don’t think that “is ok to eat meat” is a moral. But it’s true that humans haven’t tended to find it immoral (though there are exceptions to this in certain cultures, regarding certain meats).

But you make a good point, and I think the answer is that since humans make morals based on their circumstances, and the circumstances of society can and does change, then certain morals become less relevant compared to others. Murder is a fairly constant moral, because regardless of how a society changes, a murderous individual is gonna be bad for it. But on the other hand, there used to be pretty strong morals regarding how dead bodies were treated; you leave them alone. And this used to make sense, since people who messed with dead bodies were likely to get diseases and spread them. But as medicine and science and hygiene improved, this became less relevant as compared to the need to investigate dead bodies to improve understanding of disease and human biology. So our common morals regarding respect for the dead changed.

For veganism, it used to be for most societies that they couldn’t afford to simply not eat things, unless they were poisonous. So this need overwhelmed morals of kindness to nature and animals, even though this moral of kindness was still there (respecting nature is a moral found in very many cultures). But in modern day when we now have an abundance of food to the point of large waste, the need to eat whatever you can is no longer as important, and the moral of kindness to animals (and the environment) can be expressed more freely.

And indeed, I think the vast majority of vegans would agree that eating meat is not inherently immoral if there is no other choice, it’s only when meat is chosen over other alternatives that it becomes immoral, because it is unnecessary.

Sorry for the wall of text

That’s a fair point, I was mostly thinking that many people consume far too much meat, and that reducing it would be healthy, but if it’s only being replaced with trash then it wouldn’t be any better

Well I agree with you that I don’t think it was much of a deterrent, because that was the reality of how people were raised. But I think these days many people have never killed the animals they eat, and they were also not raised in the same conditions, so I suspect that forcing people to kill their own animals today would indeed be somewhat of a deterrent, at least to certain groups of people. But this is of course all just my opinion and speculation.

I believe I just did? My argument is that despite morals not coming from some magical entity, they have an origin in humanities success in society, and are therefore still important. For something to be immoral doesn’t merely mean an entity says it is bad, it means that thing goes against principles which benefit our societies. Murder is immoral, not because an entity decided that, but rather because societies which accepted murder were far less successful than societies which did not.

For veganism, the environmental mortality is clear. Besides that I suspect the reason we tend to see unnecessary animal abuse as immortal is because kinder humans tend to be better for society, and kinder humans also tend to be kinder to animals, not just humans.

You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.

I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.

Of course they did, they also had drastically less options than they do today. It’s no coincidence that veganism is a fairly new concept, it’s only fairly recently that it’s become feasible.

I of course don’t know what any specific person needs, but knowing what the vast majority of people need is trivial, it’s basic science.

Please stop arguing is such bad faith in every response you make.

It might be a fact, but it’s being used as an argument to make a specific point. These things are not exclusive.

And my question stands, why is it being used as an argument when it has no relevance?

Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn’t think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.

Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc

If people had to kill their own meat, not only would there be more vegans, but people who did eat meat would probably eat a lot less on average than the average person today does. It would probably make a lot of people healthier too.

Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn’t make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is “wrong” to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to “know” when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these “rules” is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.