TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️🌈.
“Yes, yes. Aim for the sun. That way if you miss, at least your arrow will fall far away, and the person it kills will likely be someone you don’t know.”
- Hoid
On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they’re perfectly clean because there’s just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.
(Classic guitar players have long nails)
The parent comment doesn’t appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.
To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.
Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.
What radicalism? What part of that ideal is radical? Also, a bizarre reaction. “My beliefs were challenged in the slightest, therefore this person must be silenced.” Weirdo.
Every vegan
Factually incorrect and anecdotal
the concept of death doesn’t even exist in most animal minds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/
Good read, though anyone that’s seen a pet mourn their owner or their friend knows that’s not true already.
can’t take you seriously anymore
It’s a portmanteau of debater and statist. Frankly, I don’t care what you think about me. You’re clearly biased beyond any reason as to the motives of others, to the point of making false blanket statements about entire groups. Any time someone says “all _____ are _____,” there is a problem and they should be questioned. Did the vegans you approach solicit your question? If they did not, then mind your own business. If they did, and “flip their shit,” (X to doubt on the reliability of this narrator) then that one person had an issue. The sheer fact that you can easily find very chill vegans online or irl without much effort means you’re a statistical anomaly, an asshole, or misrepresenting the truth.
The premise of your previous comment was that regardless of the health effects (ie: if vegan cat food is healthy), the cats didn’t consent to it. That argument doesn’t make any sense. I don’t disagree that cats need proper nutrition, again, I feed my cat meat. I just think your argument based on consent is not well founded and there are better ways to argue your point without making a strange implication about ignoring consent. I don’t think forcing a cat to be vegan is okay, unless that diet is properly supplemented with all the nutrients the cat needs, which may or may not be possible. I don’t know. Again, I’m not arguing for cats to be fed vegan. I’m arguing against using consent as the angle against veganism, because that opens up a whole can of worms as to hypocrisy. I’m not vegan, and there are perfectly good reasons to be or not be vegan, but animal consent definitely isn’t an argument to be made against veganism unless you want to confront the issues with animals just as intelligent as cats, or more, being consumed as food.
Weird personal attack there. Care to explain?
You sound like what I like to call a “debatist.” No one wants to be challenged on their personal choices. You don’t seem to be approaching this concept with an open mind. Can you define what makes anything they say unreasonable? I am not vegan, but I can recognize, definitively, that veganism is better for the environment (by far), healthy (if you make sure you’re getting all the nutrients you need, just like any diet), and less cruel to animals. You can choose to disagree that those conclusions mean you need to cut out animal products, but those aren’t opinions up for debate. Farming meat is far worse for the environment, vegan diets are perfectly healthy, and obviously, killing animals isn’t something the animal wants.
Again, you can disagree with their conclusion that those reasons mean you shouldn’t eat animal products, but denying that they’re true is like denying climate change. I’m not vegan, so clearly I didn’t come to the same conclusion, but I’m not trying to purport that anyone that does is somehow unreasonable.
Having personally known several perfectly normal and sane vegans, maybe your “reasonable conversation” is a bit more combative than you believe. Vegans are just normal people. Some will be crazy. Some will be normal. If your experience with your hundreds of vegans you’ve met is 100% unreasonable, then you’re definitely the problem. Someone choosing to avoid animal products for personal health or environmental reasons, or any other personal reason, is inherently not unreasonable. They might be unreasonable if they try to force their ideas on others, but defending their own choices isn’t unreasonable. Tone down your confirmation bias and aggression, and you might find that just like every large enough group, people are still people and they vary.
Edit: for the record, I’m not vegan.
That seems like a very blanket statement to make about an entire group of people. I’m not vegan, btw. The vegans I know make that choice entirely independently for the sake of the environment, because they hate the conditions in factory farming, or any number of other totally reasonable reasons. They aren’t forcing it on anyone else, or their pets for that matter. What makes you feel this way? They seem reasonable to me, even if I have no problem personally with drinking milk or eating eggs.
Dude, what are you on about. Plenty of vegans I know go vegan because it’s better for the environment. That’s a big part of why I’m vegetarian. Why make it such an “us and them” dilemma? They’re just people, even if you don’t ascribe to their choices. It seems like you’re more concerned about being right than being correct.
It seems like they did
I don’t have a dog in this race, but it seems to me the obvious answer to your consent dilemma is “no animal consents to being eaten.” I feed my cat a non-vegan diet, for the record. I’m just not pretending that the fish likes it or anything. If a perfectly healthy vegan diet is possible for a cat, which I’m honestly not clear on, then it’s definitely ethical to do so.
If you extrapolated the moral dilemma to the extreme, it would be like saying “it’s unethical to take the knife away from that serial murderer. He just wants to murder and he didn’t consent to stopping!” Obviously, that’s a ridiculous comparison, but so is making the consent argument. My point isn’t that feeding cats meat is wrong (again, I feed my cat meat), it’s that making a consent argument against veganism is silly.
That didn’t seem particularly cunt-ish to me.
Sure, if you let it bother you. If you care about the memes that much, ignore the stuff you don’t like, if you can’t stand it, find one of many other communities. I don’t think it’s on them, regardless of poor branding, when there’s so many other instances. No one is forcing you to engage in the comments of posts you don’t like.
ml stands for Marxist-Leninist. When anyone is allowed to make their own instance, and instances or users can defederate or block what they don’t want to see, why can’t an instance be political? That’s like saying “no political communities!” Just block them and move on, just as they can do the same. You commented in the memes community of a communist instance and got annoyed that you got banned for being anti-communist. Plenty of instances out there, they don’t all need to cater to every person.
It doesn’t really sound like you want the government to get out of people’s lives. Fair taxation, defending protected classes, and gun regulation are all very hands-on, and I agree that they’re all important. The real thing right wingers mean when they say “small government” is “no regulation for corporations or states” so they can be as authoritarian as they want locally and the rich don’t need to pay taxes. Banning gay marriage, controlling reproductive rights, and immigration control are not small government tasks, they’re just tasks they want the authority to mandate on a state level since they know they’ll never get the entire country on board.
What I wish more “centrists” would realize is that no one in the country, except anarchists, actually want small government, because they can’t enforce control over the things they don’t like without it. Rules for thee, not for me.
My main point being: Gender is a social construct, and doesn’t fit the complex reality of lived human experience. Let people define their gender in their own terms, for those that desire a label, and otherwise abolish it.
We have more than enough resources for more than the world’s population. The problem isn’t overpopulation, it’s manufactured scarcity. Telling people to just have less kids is victim blaming when capitalism requires letting some people starve to maintain the artificial value of products.