how about you explain to me than? What a certain term means is a matter of agreement rather than discussion. The same word could have different meanings in different contexts after all.
I’m rather more curious about your thoughts on my USSR = state-wide corporation take tho.
everybody shit the floor
everybody shit the floor
everybody shit the floor
i’m not talking about the overthrowing itself, but rather about what came after. Before leninists established their rule, there was a period of anarchy, just like there was in the 90s, not to mention that for people of a less internationalist view, USSR rule was just as tyrannical.
I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.
you’d have to explain to me how my words you quoted made you think what you thought. The way USSR was at the end of it is a result of dialectical process.
What i said there is, while (after NEP) the banking system was nationalized and even small enterprises shut, enterprise is still an enterprise, even the nationalized one. USSR before perestroika is basically a country-wide corporation, and after perestroika it’s just a plain capitalist country, so i don’t see why you oppose ussr to capitalism, when saying that “capitalists came and forced ussr to crumble”. I know that soviet propagenda would claim otherwise, but capitalists were inside all along, they just had monopoly on everything, and were referred to as government.
Call me dumb or whatever for all i said, but i think that eversince people understood that money should circulate rather than be hoarded and kept, anything we do is inherently and unavoidably capitalistic, thus categorizing a subset of people as “capitalists” in opposition to other subset is inherently wrong.
i fail to see the connection. Literally the same kind of chaos occured when the revolution happened in 1917. Not to mention, that for capitalism to be “introduced” it should be foreign in the first place. USSR, especially late one was quite capitalistic itself, albeit with it’s own uniquie flavor.
bro, the 90s of the post-ussr region was literally ruled by gangs and otherwise criminal mob. It had nothing to do with any doctrine, as the politicians didn’t matter much.
And yes, i wholeheartedly agree, we can’t compare any two countries from two different times, even if they occupied the same territory, as we’d inherrently ignore lots of historical context that way.
do you perhaps know the specifics of the “socialism” fall in now-post-ussr region? Because it was more of introduction of total anarchy and rule of the strongest than it was the introduction of capitalism.
Of course USSR was better than the crysis which consequences we’re suffering to these days.
sorry, it’s not really related to the discussion you had with the lad, i’m just in a rambling mood ig :D
no wonder, considering how exactly that capitalism looked like, and how “well” people where with handling their finances.
Collapse of the USSR in terms of how destructive it was is comparable to the one of Roman Empire. It was litaral anarchy in the 90s.
Lots of people lost all their money they hoarded in a single moment, simply because just keeping the money hidden in a safe place was considered prime financial safety. And then lots of people lost their money again as they had no idea how to handle their finances properly, and people like Mavrodi emerged with their financial pyramid schemes, promising huge profits for all the investors.
tbf, USSR did great, especially considering that basically whole world pressured and opposed it in many ways. It still managed not only to persist, but also to help other countries. But comparing its economics to even all the combined economics of all the countries that were a part of it at the time is not fair, as USSR had in total more than 70 years to develop, and was occupying vast expances of land that had big cities, lots of fertile soil and just as much of any other resource. If you want to make a more fair comparison, you should compare it to EU.
everything’s up for a debate by a random nobody on the internet. it’s in the internet’s core. You’re just as nobody here as everybody else.
Pain response? Stimuli? Sure. Because they *communicate*. as i said.
Except we were talking about the farming methods, which yes, includes killing and butchering methods, but it also includes literally everything else. And yes, killing and butchering is painful… Except any death is. Bold of you to assume that you’d die without suffering, we’d all do.
“i don’t like what you’re saying, so i’m not even finishing reading, let alone answering literally every question except literally the first one”
How intealectually lazy of you. Way to crawl up into your comfortable liittle shell of “morality”. How do you expect the problem to be ever fixed if you can’t even discuss the matter?
I’d say you’re all talk about your righteousness in your comfortable bed, but you’re even less than that, as you’re not even talking.
judging by the depth of reasoning of my opponents so far, veganism is not only not a virtue, it’s a cope of the fact that ahy life form is inherenly cruel towards the other in a system with limited resources.
I’d like to be dabated tho, cuz it sounds kinda not nice.
if you don’t have time then why bother debating?
I’m here cause i’m mildly drunk and cause i wanna entertain myself and people of lemmy with a philosophical blabber. No hurt feelings.
Anywho, the article you provided… It seems like a dramatic personal story of a previously ignorant of basic biology human, born and raised in a city. I’ve debated the “wheher we could see…” from a philosophical standpoint. I was raised in a village, where we had our own livestock, and i’ve seen my share of cruelty.
I’m making up this debate not because i support cruelty. I want to be the world as little cruel as possible. But there is a problem. Being kind and generous, as opposed to being cruel, is a vanity. Nobody wants to be cruel, as everybody is human, and averybody wants to sleep with a clean mind, knowing they did nothing wrong.
So if you think that veganism is highly moral, you’d better tell me the plan to make everybody vegan, so everyone would have a sound sleep at night. Be careful for your plan not to cause more harm than there were initially tho, as it would barely make a world into a better place then.
The article makes for a dramatic story, but otherwise offers no solution to the conundrum, not to mention that it barely relates to the topic, that , might i remind you, being “is veganism a virtue”
how do i know you’ve ever been happy?
bruh, how do *I* know if i’ye ever been happy? in my experience, happiness is a mere appreciation that something got better than it was before.
we know how badly animals are hurt…
no we don’i. Just like with any other alive being, we can only assume, based on what that alive being is communicating, and our personal perception of reality and experience. A human can be hurt, but we won’t know, as long as they won’t communicate. Everything else is an assumption.
You might say that lack of communication doesn’t imply lack of causd harm, and i’d agree with you, but if we’re so much concerned on the caused harm — ad absurdum, we should become autotrophes, as plants have systems for signaling when they’re being harmed too. This liiterally serves the same purpose as our “feeling hurt”.
Farm animals were raised with a single purpose of being farmed, and wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Lucky is a pig that was chosen to be a pet rather than a meat, but so as lucky is a man born ta a wealthy eenough environment to chose when what and where they want to eat.
I have a vanity of choice now, but not so long ago my diet consisted of buckwheat, occasional veggies, and even more occasional meat, as a treat, when the days were good.
And once again, veganism is higly moral, as long as you count every chicken breast you haven’t bought as a saved life. And i think you should do it if it makes you happier, but the meatgrinder won’t stop or even slow down, not to mention that in reality, we’re all are bastards, and i’m not talking just humans, life itself is all about “eat or be eaten” and always were.
Trust me when i say that chickens don’t concern themselve with morality, i’ve lived in a village and seen some shit they can do to their kin. Just as, basically any animal.
So if you’re really so good of heart and highly moral, you better help a fellow human in the first place. Paradoxically, we’re the most moral species there are, and the most capable in terms of doing more good, despite all the atrocities. Before thinking about making happy animals, let’s think about making happy humans, it’s just more optimal this way.
So, is veganism moral? Yes, if you don’t think about it for too long, as long as it’s only your choice, and as long as everyone else in close viscinity already received help from you.
I think buddhists is a good case for highly moral veganism. Otherwise, veganism is a hobby with dubious goals. No judging tho, everyone has those. I too enjoy my hobbies for the process and not for the result.
whether a bunch of images are separate, or are they a part of a movie is a matter of whether you can spot images being switched
Same goes for personality and “sameness” of pourself.
After all, we remember and forget all the time, our bodies physically change. I’d dare to suggest that most people still consider you to be you even if you’d lose a limb in some kind of tragic circumstances. Same goes for memories.
Continuity of existence is a charade that we’re willingly playing, bc it’s easier that way.
currently
we’re the people
or at least i am :D
also, how would others know about all that cool free stuff that i found, that’s actually cooler that the paid one 🥺🥺🥺
foss doest have any marketing budgets, so of course foss users would blabber about it all over the place.
so, like, seriously, what’s the alternative here?
“is veganism a virtue”
sounds like a topic for a debate
like, it certaily is on paper, from a moral standpoint of causing less harm to the environmant
but “the environmant” is a really vague term. After all, by not allowing John Flesheater have his steak, you’re still technically harming an animal, just morally this time :D (and possibly in terms of health a bit, if there are some kind of external dietary limitations in a given local region)
Another problem is that farm animals don’t talk much about their feelings, ro we can’t really know if we’re actually harming them, thus we can’t say whether we’re helping them by stopping the process.
But that raises another question: “how one would know if they’re happy, if they never experienced happiness?”
I think veganism is a vanity that we can afford given the right circumstances, that some cultures also try to dress up as a virtue. So if one derives joy or piece of mind from it, they shoule do it as long as they do.
oof sorry, not coming drunk to lemmy again :D
should you even be considered a lemmy user at this point? :D
i mean, there are degrees to everything
Just a year or two ago I would’ve said that i don’t even understand why linux exists. Now i’d rather say that windows should stop being a thing asap, as it brings nothing but problems and stagnation to consumer electronics, and nowadays it goes the same for any major proprietary software piece.
What can i say, i hope the era of corpos is nearing its end, and we’re the witnesses
those are the same people, sir
what did you teach them?