• Dragon
    link
    fedilink
    33 years ago

    Yeah probably they shouldn’t be on social media. I’m just saying that it could be an improvement over the current situation. If children were constantly smoking cigarettes, giving them juuls would arguably be an improvement too.

    • @Echedenyan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      23 years ago

      If you don’t solve the background issue I don’t see any improvement when you have the power to do it.

      This is like people speaking about vegetarianism (a diet) and veganism (a movement) and saying that if people go to vegetarianism is any better which is false, because slavery still exists as you don’t solve the speciesm and associated issues.

      • Dragon
        link
        fedilink
        23 years ago

        Nah, vegetarianism is an improvement from the perspective of animal rights. Fewer animals die. If you’re going to be puritan about it then veganism doesn’t help either because you still contribute to animal death by any number of activities, like driving a car and potentially running over a squirrel, or even all the animals that die from oil production. Or what about pest control on vegetable farms.

        • @Echedenyan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          Veganism doesn’t involve only a diet in opposite to vegetarianism and being puritan as you tell, doesn’t mean that you are fundamentalist. You do as far as possible.

          Vegetarianism is not any improvement over that given the possibilities in that area (food) and other not taken into account in which non-human animals are still slaves and doesn’t solve the background issues I named before like speciesm, etc

          I don’t know why people have ideas like “veganism involves just a diet” or “veganism is fundamentalist” or similar. Veganism is, itself, the minimum you can do for animal rights, not the maximum, the minimum, bare minimum. Nor vegetarianism, etc.

          That is why I put it as example in this case with Facebook.

          • Dragon
            link
            fedilink
            13 years ago

            If I own ten chickens and I kill and eat three, is that morally equivalent in your mind to owning ten chickens and killing and eating seven?

            • @Echedenyan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              In both cases the user who is going to eat kill them to be their food, it is exactly the same issue.

              I expect that your way to think is that I choose killing less but that is exactly an utilitarianist POV.

              • Dragon
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                I don’t get how it avoids the background issue. You can be principally against killing any chickens and still recognize a situation where fewer chickens die as preferable.

                • @Echedenyan@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 years ago

                  The case is out of any contextualized situation.

                  I set that you respect other animals’ rights and fight for them in the maximum possible and this is not a situation where the person has two options and all the world is involved on it to solve that. And the idea is improve that situation with the effort and the time to avoid the issues happen again.

                  • Dragon
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    3 years ago

                    Yes my comment is not in context, It’s a general statement about what is preferable. I was just initially saying that it’s possible, even though it is disgusting and signifies a decline in childhood well-being, that a facebook for only children might be a net improvement in the world.