It’s a screenshot of a screenshot. Someone posted on the subreddit mildlyinteresting about olive oil and egg. Then someone else screenshotted that and posted it on vegancirclejerk lamenting about eggs.
Then it got acreenshotted and posted here.
So yes olive oil is vegan and no that was not the claim made by the person but I agree that it’s confusing
You have a lot of plant-based options: Legumes like chickpeas, quinoa or lentils, Beans, Soy in all its forms, Seitan etc. You can mix and choose whichever you prefer and is available to you.
Just stop eating them. Better for the animals and better for the environment.
Yes CS2 has an offline mode.
Ok it feels like you’re just starting to spam answers without even taking the time to argument on why you think something. I try to take the time to justify my position and you just answer with small sentences that don’t do anything for an interesting discussion.
Let’s stop there, have a nice day.
What’s your morally relevant argument for killing for example cows for taste pleasure and not humans then? What’s this special trait humans have that other sentient being do not possess that allows us to do that to them?
Yes I agree in principle that it’s a discrimination. They way I used discrimination was implying that someone on the “bad” side of the discrimination could be discriminated against. My bad I should have clearly defined the way I used this term. Sorry English is not my first language as well.
In any case a discrimination that does not hurt the discriminated or another sentient being is of no consequence for me.
But you would agree that the rocks themselves cannot have an issue with it? That’s the gist of the sentientist position. Sentient beings have an interest in living, not being exploited and thus the sentientist position goes further and say that for the same reasons we say that humans have a right to live (i.e.: not being killed) or being exploited, we should extend the same rights to sentient beings because there is no morally relevant difference between us and other sentient beings that would justify killing them when you would not kill a human being in the same position.
Note that this does not mean all sentient beings should have exactly the same rights. Obviously giving the right to vote to a cow does not make sense, the same way we don’t give the right to abortion to cis men because they cannot make use of this right.
Ok let me unpack your two points:
The difference with the sentience criteria is that a non-sentient being by definition cannot be hurt by actions taken against their being as there is quite literally no subject, no one, to experience anything. Would you say that someones that likes smashing rocks is discriminating against rocks? Of course not because it makes no sense to speak about discrimination for a non sentient being/object. The only time where you can make an argument that doing something to a non sentient being is an issue is when it affects a sentient being.
Again as I’ve literally stated in my earlier comment the discrimination is not based on species but on sentience. If you want a more concrete example, let’s imagine a philosophical zombie or in other terms a non-sentient human. I would not include such a being in my moral circle by itself as it would lack sentience.
I guess we all have our blind spots :)
Again that’s a misunderstanding of the position. The discriminatory criteria is sentience. If a plant was found to be sentient, this plant would be included in the moral circle. You can make the same argument for things we consider animals but lack all of what we currently consider needed for sentience. An example would be a sea sponge. I personally do not include a sea sponge in my moral circle and I do not think they have any sentience even though they are considered animals. I would also consider someone that says sea sponge should be included in our moral circle just because they are part of the animal kingdom to be quite dogmatic.
And even if we want to debate on whether a sea sponge is sentient, there is absolutely no debate on most animals we currently kill for food or exploit for entertainment. They are clearly sentient.
There was a chapter in his book “Starry Messenger” dedicated to this subject. I unfortunately cannot reproduce the entire chapter here. However, here is a video essay on it that you can watch if you’re interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXw13Npvlg (25min)
One of his dumbest argument imho was trying to claim that vegans were specist towards plants, even though no scientific existence of sentience in plants exist which is the moral criteria used in most anti-specist philosophy. I will add that even if plants were all found to be sentient, we’d still kill less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to non-human animals and then killing them.
Here is another video of him talking about this very chapter for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9HrMdNEKPA (6min). I think this shows a complete misunderstanding of what veganism and anti-specism is about. To me it seems like he does not even consider the sentience of the animals and considers them as machines. He also seems to straw man the position to “vegans want to protect life”.
As long as he sticks to subjects he clearly understands. Everytime I’ve read or watched one of his take on veganism/anti-specism I was left dumbfounded and ashamed for him.
Yep that’s what I was alluding to :). Unfortunately the first DOI did not return a result. I’ll probably email the contact author. They usually are quite willing to send the PDF.
Thanks, that’s really interesting. I’ll try to find the opened paper somewhere else, but the abstract already gives a lot of interesting informations :)
Wait school zone speed limits in the US is higher than 30km/h ?
In my country school zone speed limit is usually 20km/h and there are tons of residential areas as well as more and more cities that restricts big portion of their roads to 30km/h.
This is mostly done to reduce noise pollution as well as mortal accidents.
Do you have a source for that? As I have close friends affected by MS I’d be really interested in reading a paper about it and sharing it with them.
From my initial searches I can’t seem to find anything else than this being a proposed theory among others.
Edit: I’ve found this article https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-suggests-epstein-barr-virus-may-cause-multiple-sclerosis suggesting it’s at least one of the factor but not the source of it.
Looking forward to read the actual studies as it’s a really interesting topic. One of the limitations cited is that they didn’t control for the method of cannabis ingestion (inhaling vs eating).
I hope we’ll get further studies focusing on the various methods of consuming cannabis and the effects on health.
I might have missed some parts, but did the risk only occur for frequent smokers? (And how did they define frequent)
As someone not playing valorant I think it’s really confusing to watch. Not quite to the level of League of Legends or DOTA2 but still.
Counter strike is more straight forward as you don’t have multiple heroes with their own powers.
On the other hand street fighter or rocket league are the easiest to watch, followed I feel like by CS.
Even funnier, is that the economic driving force of the soy industry is soybean meal for animal feeds compared to soybean oil.
According to https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/5/87