You didn’t even do it right.

I prefer to think of it as a visual meme collage that shows a before and after shot.

Username checks out.

No, I’m Riccosuave 🫡

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while…

See my original comment above. I added in a source for you.

You want to know what is even more fucked up. The Renton police King County Sherriff’s office was conducting an emergency response drill in the same parking lot less than 250 feet away from where his car was AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THIS HAPPENED. He didn’t have to “call the fucking police”, he could have literally rolled down his window and screamed for help, and they would have come running. Also the police station is literally like 3 blocks away from where this store is located anyway. Fuck this dumb cunt. If it was up to me he would be getting life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Edit: (Source)

It is quite literally about 24 hours worth of income for ol’ Jeff B.

Again, it was an extreme hypothetical. There were multiple people in this thread who outright suggested that as an option, which is why I asked the question.

Regarding your first paragraph: I was operating based on a very loose hypothetical question that you posed. So, I think you’re unintentionally strawmanning me here a little bit…

As far as the second paragraph is concerned I see your point. However, I specifically said life had to consume other organic material to survive, but not necessarily kill in the process. At some level of the food chain it does ultimately become a necessity though, and I do not see that as an ethical dilemma per se.

People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers.

I totally agree, and I’m fine with that.

Imagine if there was a life form stronger or smarter than humans, what would you want to say to it? “Life only comes from death so eat me or abuse me”. We can and should do better.

As far as we know the propagation of life requires the consumption of other life as inputs, or in other words every single living thing on this planet must consume material from other organic life to subsist.

Therefore, in your hypothetical I would expect that any life form that required the domestication and industrial consumption of sentient life-forms or their byproducts as a matter of survival to absolutely do so regardless of the ethical implications. If it was a matter of survival, we would become an input. Absolutely zero question about it.

I was using that as an extreme hypothetical. You can call that disingenuous if you like. I just don’t see how you can remove “animal suffering” from the equation without enforcing that measure. Otherwise all you are doing is drawing a subjective line around what suffering is acceptable and what isn’t. I’m personally fine with trying to make that determination in the least arbitrary way possible with the best technology possible so we can progress society forward, but let’s not act like there still won’t be people who see that cost as unacceptable.

/agree

First, I just want to say that this isn’t personal to me. I am concerned with the overarching ramifications of dismantling the current industrial meat, animal, and agricultural industries without first having sufficiently scalable solutions to replace them. This will kill a lot of people, and they will die in horrible ways. If you want to stop the suffering of animals you better know how to do so in a way that won’t cause additional suffering to humanity, otherwise you are never going to reach the critical mass necessary to make the change. I’m also more than willing to admit that the greed and corruption in the governmental and economic systems of the world would need to be changed as well. Good luck with that, I fully support it.

Saying “life only comes from death” is a cowardly reductionism.

No, it is an objectively verifiable fact that is backed up by even the most basic level of scientific literacy. You are confusing the higher order ethical dilemmas of sentient consciousness with the fundamental realities of nature. You can dislike it, and I understand that. I don’t like it either, but I am also not naive enough to simply ignore reality because it makes me feel bad. You are using the same kind of blind dogmatism in your response that you are accusing me of using even though I did no such thing.

sustaining human life does not require the wanton suffering of animals.

That is entirely dependant upon your interpretation of “wanton”. There is currently no other way for us to sustain life on this planet with the same degree of convenience that is afforded to us by the industrialization of the food system. Can it be made better? Sure, and I am 1000% in favor of that. But suggesting that we are going to be able to eliminate the need for animals in the supply chain anytime soon is a complete fantasy. Even if we could, there will be other health considerations that come from that which need to be researched, and well understood before we bank our survival on them. That will take many decades at best.

Don’t be a coward like I used to be by pretending that animals and plants are the same.

I literally never said that. You’re projecting here, which is whatever honestly. I get people make this argument. I’m just not one of them.

The fact of the matter is that humans have not been a collaborative member of any ecosystem for tens of thousands of years.

I’m not sure it has been quite that long, but I agree with your general premise. Overall humanity is a destructive force if you consider the preservation of nature in its pre-industrial form to be optimal. I can appreciate that argument. I’m not entirely convinced that human life is more valuable than any other life. I’m also not entirely convinced that the proliferation of life more generally has any objectively quantifiable value. That is a philosophical argument that is beyond the scope of this conversation. Again, I’m only interested in logistically feasible goals that can be realistically implemented.

Humans are omnivores and the simple reality is that as an omnivore with options at your disposal you have a choice about whether the process of sustaining your life involves wanton suffering at a massive scale or not.

Not really. What I do personally is entirely inconsequential. Systems matter. People don’t. I don’t enjoy killing things. I don’t “derive pleasure” from the suffering of others in the way you are accusing me of. However, I am willing to accept the ethical realities of eating animal protein, and I understand that I would not be alive today if my ancestors had not done the same for billions of years. So no, I don’t enjoy it, but unlike you I do accept it. I am perfectly willing to facilitate moving the system in a more humane direction in whatever small ways I can make an impact, but I’m also not stressing about livestock having to die in order to feed people either. On some level it just is what it is.

Are you totally fine with the moral consequences of enforced veganism on the entire human population? I’m asking this because you must also understand that there are going to be seriously detrimental and inescapable outcomes associated with that as well. Life only comes from death. You can fundamentally dislike the arrangement, but as far as we are aware that is a necessary input-output relationship. Choosing which deaths you are okay with is simply trading one Faustian bargain for another.

deleted by creator

It was a mistake. The mistake was the US not cutting all ties with Israel immediately.

Okay, once I started watching it I definitely remembered that episode. It’s a good episode too, thanks for reminding me!

Thanks! Definitely going to have to watch this today. I know I’ve seen this episode, but I have absolutely no memory of that explanation.