People should respond as if it is fixable, even if it is not. Any mitigation or reduction is positive. If you're gonna go out, go out swinging. Reject the status quo. Expect more from yourself and others.

And also go Vegan 🤗

Part of me is okay with this not because I don't want green initiatives, but because it would be wasted on a state that will need a large population exodus. If we are thinking about climate change long term, we should not be encouraging people to be in or stay in Florida. Build the infrastructure elsewhere.

Um sweaty dry beans are shelf stable for five years ☝️🤓

Imagine caring at all

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

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! ☝️🤓

Embrace the paradox, humans are arguably the greatest rights violators in all forms of violence, but they are also the only beings capable of granting rights through moral agency. The paradox is also true of anthropocentric climate change, it's creator, but also it's only possible resolver. The environment only has instrumental value to conscious beings so it would miss the mark to assume the absence of humans is in anyone's (including animals) best interest.

Guess we should just try to get through each others thick skulls instead of being edgy :/

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

Make your dreams come true! There are dozens of us Vegan couples! Dozens! The pool is small but someome tipping their toes in is ready to drag you under and not let go O_O

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.

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 😵‍💫

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.

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.

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.

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

Go Vegan :)

Eat. fiber. Cut saturated fat intake from cheese. Stop eating so much carcinogenic animal product. Stupid reactionary memes about your cheese addiction and poor diet will not unfuck your body or make your diet any less stupid.

Aside from any impracticality that could arise in implementation, I like the idea of federated communities between servers. I mean why not extend the possibilities of federation even further? Community mods or users could de/federate from communities on other servers with the same names or core themes should they so choose. In consideration of difficulties with moderating spam and other materials from other communities generated with the same name, I think it makes sense for that kind of community federation to be opt-in rather than opt-out.

If it goes the Reddit route, one of those communities will definitely border on dead and the risk for moderators/servers having too much power/influence within the larger communities continues.

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.