Religion, famous for encouraging you to critically examine your beliefs.
It's a scandal for her, not for him. And it seems like gossip and hearsay at that.
Sorry, the smoking gun on Melenchon is that his girlfriend is rude to people sometimes? That's some tabloid shit, and kind of a counterexample to your overall point. People should ignore politically motivated gossip.
I've fallen off a bit on it, but Go. The amount of complexity that emerges from simple rules, the aesthetic forms that emerge, as if both players are collaborating on a work of art. To an experienced player, each stone has a meaning, in it's own language, and you can almost hear them speaking. There are so many ways to approach the game, a player's personality reveals itself on the Go board, and any flaw in one's way of thinking, anything you need to work on, comes out on the board like looking into a mental mirror.
I'm actually heading out to a tournament now, and I'm super rusty but I think I'm starting to rediscover my interest in it.
And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.
Yes, because that's what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn't mean that's actually an option that is practically available.
I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, "But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?"
Is there a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they'll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don't. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you'll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.
Likewise, I'm sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you've looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you're doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.
but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.)
It wasn't just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy's. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on "warrior spirit" or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it's simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
When was the last time the US wasn't in wartime though?
You've got fascism in your anti-communism again.
Ukrainians and Irish are obviously too stupid to handle their own agriculture and desperately needed guidance from Moscow or London.
Pretty much every place in the world suffered from famines before modern farming techniques were introduced, and while under the rule of extractive nobles/landowners. It has nothing to do with being "too stupid" or "needing guidance."
Famines in Ireland and India continued frequently under British rule. The famine in Ukraine was in a large part caused by political upheaval from overthrowing the power of the landowners (who responded by burning their stores), which is why it only happened once.
What about wool, honey, milk, eggs.
Again, it's a matter of whether you're looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.
Take eggs for example. Eggs aren't just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can't claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.
It's a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.
No matter what animal product we're talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren't true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.
The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that's produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.
The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like "organic," completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.
Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.
Labels like "organic" are essentially meaningless.
Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.
FFIV's great opening
view more:
next ›