Holy hell that title is trying so hard to put two awful puns in that it became completely meaningless.

“Mitsubishi pulls out of China’s EV/hybrid market facing strong competition”
ftfy

I don’t believe anybody can specify who exactly formulates cultural norms. The “we” here is used in the abstract.

In this case, there will be a group of people who share a common moral principle.

I can’t help with providing an explanation for why it would be more ethical to eat some animals than others, because my personal principle is that it’s unethical to eat any animal.

I haven’t advocated for making you do anything that you don’t want to do, and I most certainly haven’t suggested that you are a horrible person. Wherever this hostility is coming from, I feel like it’s terribly misplaced.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I personally think that in many ways, we do simply choose to eat meat. I’m vegetarian, and even by avoiding some animal products like milk and eggs, I find that since doing so since my early thirties it has had no impact on my health whatsoever. My iron and vitamin levels are fine and in checkups my blood work always looks good.

Surely you realize that you have constructed a logical argument around the conclusion that you wished to make? You can make life choices that best align with your principles and do your part to make a difference.

With reducing animal suffering, there’s is veganism on one end of the scale. It seems that you lean somewhere towards the opposite end by making no attempt to resolve this whatsoever. Vegetarianism and pescatarianism exist somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion, it’s okay to aspire to change antiqued cultural norms that, through a modern lens, we no longer find ethical. By setting the bar so high that it’s effectively “your objections to killing any animals are only valid if you eat no meat at all,” there’s no reasonable approach to reducing meat consumption.

As for myself, I lead by example and eat no meat at all, but that’s not where I began. I first reduced red meat, then became pescatarian and only in my early thirties became fully vegetarian.

Similarly, I believe that identifying a wide range of reasons to justify change can help with taking the first steps to accomplish it, like recognizing dogs as companion animals and for their intelligence, the health, environmental and ecological benefits of reducing intake, and so on.

Barbara Streisand effect. Let’s not give this guy the time of day.

Chinese prison labor bad. Western US prison labor good.

ftfy

This debate sure took an unexpected turn.

The analogy would not be to ban driving cars, but ban the resale of cars. The incentive for theft is the value; if you remove the value, then there is less incentive to steal it.

So to answer this hypothetical question, should we ban the resale of cars? No, because the owner can be insured for the monetary value of their stolen vehicle. What is the monetary value of a pet? I don’t believe this can be quantified.

Which country is this?

Holy hell this is such a naive take that it makes my head spin. Phosphorus is an absolute essential for life on our planet and cannot be replaced or synthesized by something else. Currently it’s literally running off farm lands and into the deepest depths of our oceans.

This is just one of the many examples of resources that are being depleted and will need a comprehensive and horrendously expensive global effort to be addressed, all while the world population continues to grow and increase in demand.

Where in this video does it state that overpopulation is not a problem? The message the video is conveying, as I’ve interpreted it, is that the bleak, distopian vision of an overpopulated planet is not likely based on historical trends: as we develop as a society, the overall standard of living has improved, fertility rates reduce to a stable or even shrinking population, etc., etc.

The video does not address the current state of our overpopulated planet, and the impact humans continue to have on animal populations, biomes or climate change. None of these things are likely to be easily reversed within even a few generations, and with the current trend, will likely only continue to get worse in our lifetimes.

In my opinion, overpopulation is a problem today, and while it may reduce social inequalities for humans, reproductive rates cannot drop quickly enough to make a dent in the lasting impact our species is having on issues affecting the planet as a whole.

Which developing countries specifically does this recommendation apply to?

Foolish of PiS to have forgotten to marginalize this demographic. They’ve successfully been restricting absentee voting and voting from abroad, did they just forget about similar tactics for excluding young females?

Thanks for the detailed analysis!

I read halfway through this comment fully under the impression it was about Spotify and was profoundly confused until I scrolled up and realized my mistake.

Either are okay, because the history is actually linen tape (“doek” tape, from Dutch) and it was branded as both when Anglicized.