Falling3

I became a vegan 15 years ago because I couldn't morally justify the unnecessary raising and killing other individuals. You may not agree, but writing that decision off as "trendy" is more than a bit condescending.

Every study I've seen on the Earth's carrying capacity came to the conclusion that we could support at least a few more billion humans. So why you believe it's more correct to say we have a population problem than a consumption problem?

Sorry, I'm not following what you were trying to do there. Are you trying to bring this back around to human population growth?

Referring to a "lifetime committ[m]ent to what is seen as a positive relationship" as a fairy tale is pretty ridiculous.

That would certainly be a potential solution for the environmental issues. I still don't find it to be ethical for the individuals being farmed.

Ah yes. The well-known environmental impact of rectangular shaped foodstuffs.

Seriously, this amounts to nothing more than a Naturalistic Fallacy.

There is no way to satisfy the growing demand for meat in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that's leaving aside any questions of ethics for the animals themselves.

Are you implying that children that are weaned shouldn't have non-dairy milk substitutes?

Paying for the externalities and eliminating subsidies would go a long way.

Very disappointing. I'm not at all clear on the concern over semantics except in the case of lobbying groups and large companies on the animal ag side.

>In many cases, you can't have one with the other. Privacy or Personal security - pick one.

You have a lot of work ahead of you to demonstrate that empirical fact. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that infringing on our right to privacy makes use safer in any meaningful way - though I have seen evidence to indicate it, in fact, makes us less safe.

You criticize his post for only include some of the background information, yet yours includes none of it. If you're willing to call out the former for being misleading, what of the latter?

Thanks for providing all of that background information! I was skeptical of the parent comment's claims - particularly how overly simplistic they were. But as someone on the other side of the world, I can't easily know how unrealistic their portrayal of the situation is.

> you waltz in and tell them what they prescribe is wrong and your automated treatment plan is better.

That doesn't really capture the conversation though. Susan specifically said (as you quoted) that it was possible she would use the recommendations of the app. If she took a recommendation that means she agreed it was a better treatment. His question was not whether his algorithm was better than her default prescriptions - because they both agreed that was the case at least some of the time - it was whether it was better enough to be financially worthwhile.

> However I recall the night my son was born - the facilities, staff and resources of the hospital were unmatched - the mother and baby would not have the same experience anywhere else in the world.

We had a wonderful experience with the birth of our daughter, but I have no idea how I could claim it was better than anywhere in the world. I'm asking because you seem to be making a low-hyperbole claim here: what is your basis for saying that? Particularly, when the US has some of the worst metrics for infant mortality, birth weights, and mother mortality rates in the developed world.

> My wife works in the ER - they constantly use procedures and deploy resources in ways that would be considered impractical elsewhere in the world.

Does this actually lead to better health outcomes? The US ranks low in the developed world in many health-related areas. Some of them are at least in part due to cultural issues and it is completely fair to attribute to our healthcare system. But some of them like our rates of medical and lab errors clearly are. I'm genuinely looking for data to support the idea that the tradeoff you mentioned actually exists.

> There is no “legalize it” solution with these drugs

That's why keeping in mind the difference between legalization and decriminalization is important.

I don't. And "just raise your own" is obviously not a viable option for the overwhelming majority of people.

I would strongly disagree that any commercial operation - regardless of its labeling - could be called cruelty free. That leaves neighbors with backyard hens, which will never be enough cover any significant portion of egg consumption.

> It's an analogy. None are perfect

It's more than just an analogy when the parent comment claimed that if you support one, you should support the other. I'm not disagreeing that the scenarios aren't analogous. I'm disagreeing that the same logic that makes one of those things essential to a functioning society should be tried to be wedged in as an argument for the other.

> If you agree with tenant eviction protections, then you should probably support similar eviction protections for cloud computing

I can't say I agree or that I find this analogy valid. Tenant eviction protection is, in part, to protect human life acknowledging the necessity of shelter. The same just doesn't apply to cloud computing.

Pointing out bias and lying are ad hominmem attacks now? Almost every one of the videos posted to Ngo's twitter are accompanied by his own commentary so I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise. And even if they weren't, I know of at least one specific incident where his sharing of a carefully edited video with missing information created a completely false narrative. His "reporting" has been deeply intertwined with the violence in this city, directly collaborating with violent far right groups, helping to doxx political activists and leading to multiple instances of death threats.

I understand that you're not in Oregon or even the US - and even though Ngo clearly speaks to your politics, he's not an accurate source of information. There's an abundance of information showing that to be the case.

> Or put another way, because they theorise that white police are involved in an enormous, coast-to-coast conspiracy against black people

That is a blatant straw-man. The U.S. has a violent, racist history - particularly it's police force. There is no reason a continuation of violence and racism would require a conspiracy.

Andy Ngo is completely and utterly full of shit. He spent much of 2019 working with Far Right groups like Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys crafting narratives to demonize left-wing groups. He is on video discussing an upcoming brawl with Patriot Prayer. He lied about being hit by a cement milkshake. He has a long history of acting as a provocateur with no interest in objective report in any sense of the word. Helping to incite violence and feigning victim-hood is his MO. Any sentence starting with "Ngo claims" should be immediately disregarded.

The protests here in Portland have been limited to a few square blocks. The constant claims that the city is burning down are obvious hyperbole. And the completely disingenuous comparisons of these actions - however you view them - to terrorists storming the US Capitol to undermine an election is just astounding.

> I mean 3rd trimester babies that could survive outside the womb are fair game.

Got a citation on that?

> The whole point is that this is a biased assumption

It's absolutely not. Whether the president's claims are true is another matter entirely. When he makes a claim with no specifics, no explanation of how it occurred, and no evidence, that's a baseless claim. And it does not deserve equal representation in the media merely by virtue of it having been said.

Oh I see you were the original commenter as well. Are you disputing the idea that you tried to use the actions of a specific wild animal to justify our treatment of animals? I mean, I get it. It's a really common tactic. I'm just confused by your surprise.

It pertains pretty specifically to the comment I replied to. I'm not sure how that's not clear?

That's exactly where most veal comes from - the male offspring of dairy cows.

The highest good or the only good? Do you actually try an quantify the suffering of an animal on a farm and make an honest comparison to the pleasure a human gets from eating them? Do you also support torturing animals and bestiality with the same justification?

What moral questions are you comfortable using the actions of hyenas to justify?

> Purely lab-synthesized food that does not involve cultivation of any other organization is still a long way off from reaching any kind of scale for mass consumption.

I don't disagree, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.