Maybe no one should see it?

There’s pretty widely documented evidence that slaughterhouse work is also harmful to mental health.

(Link is to sagepub)

If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?

Article 6 says:

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.

It takes mental effort to defend a group, or to engage in good faith discussion at all, really. People tend to pick up on key buzzwords that get thrown around a lot by certain groups and use those to gauge whether the discussion is going to be worth continuing. Concern-trolling and “I’m just asking questions” is quite common in these contexts, so both sides do this, to be honest.

Yeah, it seems like reverse immigration is being used to talk about new immigrants from other countries going back to their home country. But, the top result for the term is this article so I’m not sure if this is a standardized usage yet.

I get you, but I also think there’s value in considering how these kinds of conversations affect people who are neither vegetarian nor vegan.

If you create a permission structure for 10 meat eaters to write off the whole group as extremist crazies, while you’re trying to bully 1 vegetarian, who might be, maybe, bullied into veganism, that’s still a net loss of a whole lot of animals.

Also, this isn’t a veg friendly space. Having conversations like this among other veg*ns is entirely a different affair than doing it in an environment where the average response is just “hell no, I love my meat”

Sorry, but I just don’t think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It’s rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.

This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.

No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It’s our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.

Looks left at 90% of the human population causing untold suffering without giving 2 shits.

Looks right at the 5% that are actually bothering to do something.

“Yes, let’s shit on them”

Who’s the guy just to the left of Dahmer?

And the two guys just to the right of Saddam?

ETA: left of Dahmer is Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine shooters. Leaving this up anyway

The family and also the calf are okay, fwiw.

My point is that it happens more frequently in places where dog meat is frequently consumed.

We ban things we want less of. More eating dogs means a bigger market for all dog meat, which means a bigger market for theft. I want less of that.

People don’t steal things that no one wants to buy.

I’m talking about the side effects of fostering a culture where eating a non-livestock animal is ok. My argument is that this kind of culture is pointlessly cruel to an animal that we’ve explicitly bred to be a companion.

One element of discouraging a culture is government action, a ban (coercion). I argue this is a necessary step in ending a cruel practice.

The other is cultural compliance (people behaving in a certain way regardless of the presence of law enforcement officials). I argue this is a necessary step as well, by way of education and improving access to alternatives.

If you banned driving cars, there just wouldn’t be any cars around. That analogy has little to do with dogs. What is it about a ban that makes no sense to you?

I’m a vegan, but one argument specifically against allowing dog meat trade is that it often encourages stealing companion animals (aka pets) to make a quick buck. Sometimes they’re held ransom and people have to pay the thieves to keep a member of their family from being killed and eaten. Wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

Also, dogs were bred specifically to live alongside humans, to form bonds with us. To do that to any organism and then treat it like livestock is a special kind of monstrous.

So I’m in favor of drawing as many lines as possible when it comes to animal consumption of any kind. And then, if the situation makes you uncomfortable about some of the other lines you’ve drawn around cows, pigs, or chickens, then you analyzing those in more depth too is also a win in my book.

They are altering the deal. Pray they don’t alter it any further.

“now here’s more bomb money.”

LegendOfTotalWar feeling this rn

Mhm, I’m sure that this is just one small part of your long history of activism to increase prisoner access to health and dental care.

Yes yes, keep complaining about trans people existing. That’s much simpler than thinking about why there are so many fucking prisoners for you, isn’t it?

Ejaculating at least 21 times a month is strongly correlated with a reduction in risk (like 30%) for prostate cancer.

This question is probably worth revisiting after 2024’s election, since Trump may still have more mileage. A second term might be more dangerous than the first was. Assuming he doesn’t win, then his legacy will mostly be all of the weird and slightly hard to measure changes to American culture, specifically conservative political culture.

He generally seems to have made more dangerous ideas popular but also to have made getting a governing coalition together to actually enact those ideas more difficult by eroding the Republican party. Bush’s foreign policy decisions seem to have been far more dangerous so I think I’d vote for Bush being the worst as of right now.

That said, Trump still has a non-zero chance of bringing real American fascism into power so that would change things.