Your reply wasn’t removed.

I can only assume it is not showing because the parent comment you replied to was removed for rule breaches.

I live in fear that the Phoronix forums will federate…

Also limiting rule updates to new extension versions will essentially make it impossible for adblockers to outpace anti-adblock interventions.

Why do you expect that Edge wouldn’t adopt Google-like MV3 along with Chrome?

Microsoft adopted Chromium in order to minimise development costs in a product it doesn’t see as core, something which would be incurred if it had to maintain its own fork of mv3, and is incentivized through Bing to pursue a similar approach.

deleted by creator

I can’t agree with this.

People pretty much only make decisions based on emotions. This is even pretty well established as the case in modern jurisprudence; judges work backwards based on their emotional presuppositions.

People don’t like these sorts of comments, because they don’t want to be confronted with the impacts of their practices, and experience the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance.

While I might use other language for carnists, they would not be happy with vegan arguments and discourse unless it is completely supportive of their position or otherwise silent. I don’t see anything wrong with OP posting this sort of language in a vegan forum to vent.

Completely agree.

It’s more about how researchers actually appear to be deconstructing the human-centric notion of language to include non-human animals. This is particularly good in this regard as it involves one of the species we treat the worst.

In my view such progress is critical to undoing our commodification of animals which underlies and justifies carnism.

My personal view is that one shouldn’t eat it.

Part of the rationale for going vegan is to impose economic outcomes on businesses as a result of your demand or lack thereof. Another part is to challenge the status quo and normalise a more ethical alternative.

My view in this situation is that the ethical thing to do if you asked for a vegan item and they didn’t do that is to go back to this place and request that they make you a new item. This imposes a cost on the business, that hopefully means they will be more careful in the future. It also prevents your small portion of profit from fueling demand for animal products by removing or cancelling out that sale from their calculations.

The other portion, is that politely informing the shop about it, educates them on what vegans require, and also normalises veganism and challenges the carnist status quo, both to the business and others around you.

Amazingly interesting!

It can produce more savings sure in terms of electricity costs, but when including capital, solar is presently much more cost effective. In my area some 6.8kw panels have a four year ROI.

Without going into the details of the complete field of life-cycle assessment, this is not how co-products are assessed.

The leather industry position generally, is that leather is a byproduct, which would allow them to conveniently exclude all emissions and impacts prior to the slaughter and (some of the) torture of the cattle.

Leather though, is not a by-product but a co-product - this is well established. What this means is that it is so significant an income stream, that it is likely that many or even all of the cattle in a given group would not have been raised and slaughtered in the first place without both or multiple income streams coming from that slaughter. This is why LCA calculates the entire lifecycle of the cattle, and is the position adopted for leather by independent international sustainability groups and academia generally.

I’m curious what sized system you are putting in that costs that much.

An 8kw solar system usually costs a bit over $8k and at least in many areas seems to have a ROI of a bit over 6 years at most and often much less.

It is also false.

Studies and LCA analysis have revealed that leather products are far more damaging to the environment than even PU leather.

This is due to the enormous environmental impact of the cattle themselves, including land clearing, water use, direct emissions, etc.

I don’t think banning carnists is the solution.

I do think that rules similar to /r/vegan would help a lot.

I think another forum would be better for arguments against veganism, otherwise this forum will just get swamped with upvoted carnist answers to vegan or vegan-curious questions, or upvoted arguments against veganism. We will also routinely see the same fallacies over and over again.

Look at the recent discussion around the post of keto.

I think it would be a great idea.

This forum is particularly toxic, as due to the apparent audience here on Lemmy, any topics relating to veganism get brigaded and no real discussion can be had.

Lemmy is to reddit what mastodon is to twitter essentially.

To be honest a lot of this stuff is pretty easily answered and has been discussed ad nauseum in spaces like /r/vegan. This is also not a great space to ask this question of vegans, as a lot of carnists (yes that includes vegetarians) come here to argue against veganism and upvote answers they agree with but that practicing ethical vegans are likely to reject. You are likely to get better answers from vegans in other spaces.

In terms of your above post there is nothing scientific in what you’ve described. It appears you are using a veneer of science to avoid adopting views you disagree with. To be frank there is a lack of research on almost all animals in terms of their sentience, intelligence and capacity to suffer, presumably due to the carnist nature of society. There is also the unavoidable philosophical problem of other minds, which we are unlikely to be able to readily solve with science; we will never truly be able to determine the experience of another non-homo sapien creature and can only work through analogy to the experience of homo sapiens.

The above notwithstanding, even if some creatures are more “intelligent” in some ways than other creatures, how does this impact their entitlement to the bare minimum of moral consideration, i.e. freedom from intentional harm and exploitation? How have you determined that each “tier” that you have created only deserves the rights you have designated? The assignment and exclusion of moral consideration is the province of philosophy and politics, not science. There are certain classes of humans who are alive, and through severe disability or illness, have intelligence arguably lesser than many of the animals listed above in your lower tiers. Would you therefore exclude them from moral consideration? Of course not, and this is why intelligence is irrelevant to moral consideration - it is not a morally relevant characteristic.

The morally relevant characteristic that stands philosophical rigour to determine if moral consideration should be granted is a capacity to suffer. It is pretty clear that all of the animals listed, apart perhaps from tier 5, have this, so it makes sense for these animals to have moral consideration.

You have also completely ignored the well established link between commodification and carnism in the above, which is a key reason, as to why exploitation and commodification of animals is ethically unacceptable and should be eschewed - the commodification of animals, or relegation of them to zoe, is fundamentally how we as a society and as individuals justify their ongoing torture, mistreatment and slaughter in most ways throughout society. This is without even going into other issues regarding exploitation, such as an inability for an animal to provide meaningful consent, and respect for bodily autonomy that we grant other individuals, regardless of intelligence.

This doesn’t mean that vegans would generally be opposed to adopting animals to care for them, or opening sanctuaries - most people I have encountered and literature I have read understand that we operate within the internal logic of a carnist society, and that while it is unethical to engage in the support of further breeding, it is ethical to care for adopted animals (or animals you had prior to going vegan) that have already been brought into existence through this system.

In terms of your tier 5, due to the lack of research here, the problem of other minds, and the lack of necessity here for people to engage in the exploitation or harm of these creatures, I am of the view that the default position should be erring on the side of caution.

This is not correct.

arewefastyet.com shows very clearly that although chrome beats firefox in some benchmarks, firefox trades blows with it and is similar to or faster in others.