Hella righteous brother 😎👉👉

Diet

Health

Respond to comment about making healthy/ethical decisions and people’s defensiveness about it.

Yeah that seems ‘tangentially’ related. You sound like the guy the commenter was describing.

Doesnt matter if you dislike vegans. Stop abusing animals 💁🏼‍♂️

Go Vegan :)

They are designing the chip of the robot to adjust movement based on information they can gather from the mushroom when it responds to stimuli, not the other way around. The mushroom is not in control of the robot.

Nhap isn’t pretend toothpaste if you go that option. No flouride though. Just a thought.

For the love of God eat fiber and drink water. How hard is this?

Based. but also, cringe.

I CAN’T SPELL it’s less points of failure.

Quieter, less point’s of failure, and in many cases taking up less space. I have compressed air for dust. In the consumer sphere and almost any enthusiast sphere, air cooling > > > water cooling

I imagine a lot of people have the air on for indoor animals while they go to the office.

So if i want an external society to stop genociding for abritrary reasons, and I encourage my society to openly condemn it – even consider physical intervention where no alternative works, I’m the nazi? Did America do a nazi when they invaded Germany to end Hitler’s expansion/regime?

You don’t think animals are conscious? Or do you not care that they are conscious?

We can agree to disagree on our differing views of morality, you do you, and I do me.

I’m a moral objectivist, I literally won’t do that 🤣

Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don’t know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don’t know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens 😵‍💫

I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don’t see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you’re in contradiction because you are once again saying you don’t get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I’d do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.

If for some reason he medically required heme-iron, I’d rather publicly subsidize the price difference for them to eat impossible meat as that does contain heme-iron. No more requirement to rely on animal products for that. As far as I’m aware though, it’s just a concern of absorption rate. If the absorption rate is the concern they should just focus on taking a higher dosage supplement - which would not require heme-iron.

Zero sum game that requires my own death to achieve - seems a reasonable request compared to a request to not participate in the forcible birthing of billions of animals into exploitative confinement until they are killed at our convenience for eternity, or the unecessary trawling of trillions of them.

Or we can seek to achieve what is possible, and work out what isn’t over time. You describe a technical problem. That aside can you even empirically prove that more animals die in agricultural fields than in nature? I’m all in favor of reducing those deaths but is it actually any worse than if we let the existing fields reforest? I don’t see your point as analogous to my own concerns.

Foundationally we already disagree, as I’m a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you’re now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.

On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it’s fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.

If it’s false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?

Your examples don’t have victims, this one does.

The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! ☝️🤓