Doing drugs should be decriminalized, but not legal. Ideally when someone is found addicted to drugs they would be provided help rather than punishment. Selling drugs should remain criminal but consequences should be determined based on the amount found selling and to who (like a child or someone who’s pregnant would be a higher penalty at the discretion of the court), legalizing would just give a tax incentive for pushing drugs similar to gambling.
Edit: I want to clarify, I’m talking about addictive drugs with known negative health effects like meth. Weed can be legal, who cares.
What you are saying ia only half true. While you can get addicted to let’s say your phone, it’s still natural. You can put it down and pick it up any time, you just have a harder time reasoning with yourself, and will do it sometimes out of habbit.
However drugs manipulate your brain, and getting addicted to drugs is on another level of addiction. The “harder to reason with yourself” part becomes near impossible. Without help you borderline can’t stop.
With a “natural” addiction your impulses are still in a healthy range. You are in control, it just guides you to something that you like subconsciously.
I oversimplified and I’m also not a professional at this topic, but I did some research. I was curious about why can’t ppl stop playing some videogames, while others are just an activity, nothing more. (Also why the tiktok formula is so addicting)
Yeah, but we already have laws against specific drugs so this wouldn’t be any worse than what we already have, instead it’s an approach to make it safer without just saying it’s okay. But yeah the decision of if it should be a controlled substance should be left up to a board of medical professionals rather than politicians as it is now.
The correctness of an idea is totally independent of how many people believe it, and to believe otherwise is to be some dipshit who says “Idiocracy is a documentary!!!” and invoke Hanlon’s Razor instead of having actual good, materialist analysis of the world
I don’t think they are independent. Most people believe that the sky is blue when the sun is high and objects fall to the ground if they aren’t propelled or lighter than air. It is not an accident that they believe correct things, it is from experience and education. Most people have a huge amount of correct information that is held in common in their society along with the myths and superstitions and misconceptions, while that latter category [false beliefs held in common] are usually but not always are things that fall outside of their experience.
addendum: they believe things which are almost correct or apparently correct. Heavier objects fall faster is not correct, but it is apparently correct because very light objects fall slower than heavy objects, and this appears to be constant unless you actually check and realize there’s a threshold. There’s no world outside of eurasia and africa is functionally true if you lack the nautical equipment to reach the americas, but factually wrong. You can’t get things too wrong without problems, but there’s a decent amount of leeway.
It’s a heuristic thing. Denser objects are often* heavier, but it’s the density and not the weight that may make them fall faster (not accounting for how aerodynamic a given object is). It can produce incorrect judgements, especially if they attempt to articulate their intuitive knowledge as some precise-yet-abstract law, but in practical circumstances their intuitive knowledge produces the expected result the vast majority of the time, so pragmatically it’s reasonable to call it correct.
*Certainly their weight is more noticeable, as is the lack of weight of less-dense objects, so perhaps this is the real source of the skew, a type of selection bias.
Depends where they got the opinion. If it’s something that most people have experienced then they probably have a pretty grounded opinion but if its something they’re only aware of because of news then there’s reason for skepticism. Ask people on the street their opinions on something related to the economy and its a mess.
Opinions can easily be based on ignorance, copycat behavior, group pressure, is a product of that time, etc. Even experience can be a wrong basis for an opinion
I commend you for voicing this opinion and disagree with you with every fiber of my being.
Why introduce astral projection instead of having Luke become one with the Force and then stall Kylo? The outcome is the same, but it doesn’t require the introduction of a new Force power and doesn’t imply that Luke used up his life force or whatever, which is also a completely new thing in the Star Wars universe. Having Luke’s Force ghost instead aligns with Episode IV when Obi Wan says that when he joins the Force he’ll be more powerful than Vader can possibly imagine.
You’re not really arguing against the whole crowd there, a lot of people (wrongly) hold the same opinion. The problem is thinking of the door swap as an independent event when it’s not; the result is directly related to the original choice of door. If we label the doors A, B, and C and put the prize behind door A, here’s the possible options:
Edit: I see you added a table to your comment, but you’re miscounting pretty badly there. You’re giving double weight to initial choice being correct.
It is technically true that when you pick A the presenter can open either B or C, but then you need to account for that in your odds; it’s 50% either way so the win/loss rate is halved. In other words:
As shown, including which door the presenter opens does not affect the odds. When sticking, you win (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%) and lose (33% + 33% = 66%), when swapping you win (33% + 33% = 66%) and lose (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%).
I was stubborn about this for so long, and I’m still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.
Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The “choice to switch” is really just a second round of the game, but with a 1/2 chance of winning (wrong, your odds change only if you “participate” in round two).
If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the 1/2 odds of the “second round”.
Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn’t be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.
The “second round” of the game is always just, “flip your odds of winning if you swap”. That’s all it is.
Monty will always open the proper doors to ensure this happens every time. Did you pick the winning door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all other doors but leave one of the losers. Did you pick a losing door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all the other losers and only leave the winner. It’s always the opposite of what you picked. Therefore, if you swap, you will simply get the opposite odds of the first round.
100 doors to pick from, only 1 winner? 1/100 chance to win if you just picked at random and ended it there. Now Monty offers a swap. Without the swap, you have 99 different ways to lose this. But with the swap, all 99 of those ways become winners, because Monty will always swap the opposite with you.
Say there are 100 doors, you choose one, then 98 are knocked out randomly (likely including the prize) - Now each of the 2 doors has the same chance of winning, so there is no reason to change
But starting with 100 doors and a knowledgeable Monty Hall, once you’ve chosen a door, the only reason Monty Hall leaves your door alone is because you chose it, whether it is the 1/100 winner, or one of the 99/100 losers
Either you chose the right door the first time (1/100 chance) or the other door has the prize behind it - those are the only options - the other door literally represents the 99/100 other doors in a single choice
but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer
There’s four total outcomes of the problem:
Scenario 1: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and don’t switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 2: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and did switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 3: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and don’t switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/3
Scenario 4: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and do switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/3
Now consider scenarios 1 and 3 together, these two are when you don’t switch. P(S1) is 1/6 and P(S3) is 1/3, meaning S3 is twice as likely than S1. So if you don’t switch, you are twice as likely to lose. And now consider scenarios 2 and 4 together. P(S4) is 1/3 and P(S2) is 1/6, meaning if you switch you are twice as likely to win than to lose.
I have no clue what this actually is about. But I always remember watching Deal or No Deal and thinking “If it was down to two boxes, £1 and £250K, I would absolutely swap my box.” There is no way I would believe that all along I’ve been holding the 250K box. In my mind it makes more sense that I’m holding the £1 box and I need to swap.
With 100 doors switching should give you a 99% win rate.
You're essentially concentrating the entire thing into this one vs not this one, and when you initially chose there was a 99% chance it was not this one.
After Monty opens all the other doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one is still 99% except that now the entirety of not this one is represented by that single other door. The Grand Prize has nowhere else to be, and the odds that you picked it first is still only 1%.
So, to bring it back down, with three doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one 66%, and we end up exactly where we expected to be.
Edit: Sure the plot is nothing to write home about but in this sense it’s a pure action movie and as an action movie it’s of a much higher quality than what the industry has given us for a very long time.
I have to agree with the plotless aspect. I will, however, defend it solely for its special effects. I think modern films should strive for the standard that movie set in my mind.
Well the plot is very simple but there are lot of worldbuilding details and some are very easy to miss.
Like Immortan Joe has some kind of disease. His skin is all fucked up and he wears a muscular looking suit to hide that, just before going in front of a massive crowd of followers to give them barely enough water.
All of that is shown through images and not via verbal exposition. We’ve seen him for barely 2 minutes and Miller has already told us what kind of person he is.
Or the hand gesture of war boys mimic the V8 engine.
Give it another shot and see what else you can pick up.
Dammit, I wanna argue against this so bad. I feel like Fury Road is among the rare, if not only, reboot or sequel or whatever you’d call it for movies that had a fresh entry after so long that holds pretty decent in light of the originals. It has awesome visuals, pretty good pacing, immersive characters, decent interactions.
Yet now I feel like the main plot is kinda stitch-together, “rise up people!” Marvel kind of garbage, with catchy “witness me” kinda stuff sparkled. Local settlement warlords in style of Farcry 3 and up.
Aren’t ask lemmy posts “low effort” in general as well in the sense that it’s just a question? My point isn’t that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it’s low effort doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Hear me out, I don’t want to be Musk. I want to be in a situation where I don’t have to work and I don’t have to worry about money for the rest of my life. If today I want to lay in my bed until 11, get up and play games until 3pm, start binging a new series until 10pm, and then go clubbing until 4am, I wouldn’t have to worry about whether it’s Tuesday or Saturday, whether I have a project due tomorrow, whether I have food in the fridge, whether I can afford to pay my bills, all because I get a stream of money coming into my account every month, enough to cover all my expenses and then some, so if I want to start a project that can develop into a successful business, I can do that. And if I just want to tinker with some random piece of hardware I found on eBay, I can do that. And if I just want to go through the routine above, I can do that. That’s what I seek. That level of freedom. Money is just a way of achieving that freedom.
Pointless luxury can have different meaning for different people. Some people use money to amass power. For such people, controlling multiple businesses in multiple vital industries is key. For a person who wants to use money to achieve freedom (lile me), buying up media companies would be pointless. For someone aiming to amass power, it would be key.
Saw it posted on Instagram or Facebook or somewhere and all of the top comments were saying 1. Any comment saying 16 had tons of comments ironically telling that person to go back to first grade and calling them stupid.
At this point, you solve it left to right because division and multiplication are on the same level. BODMAS and PEMDAS were created by teachers to make it easier to remember, but ultimately, they are on the same level, meaning you solve it left-to-right, so…
Depends on whether you’re a computer or a mathematician.
2(2+2) is equivalent to 2 x (2+2), but they are not equal. Using parenthesis implicitly groups the 2(2+2) as part of the paretheses function. A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4 and evaluate the expression left to right, but this is not what it written. We learned in elementary school in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do.
Of course, modern mathematicians work primarily in computers, where the legacy calculator functions have become standard and distinctions like this have become trivial.
It seems you are partly correct. You are correct in saying that this is how it used to be done (but that was 100 years ago, it seems) and you are correct that in modern times, this would be interpreted as I did it, above.
The author of that article makes the mistake of youth, that because things are different now that the change was sudden and universal. They can find evidence that things were different 100 years ago, but 50 years ago there were zero computers in classrooms, and 30 years ago a graphing calculator was considered advanced technology for an elementary age student. We were taught the old math because that is what our teachers were taught.
Early calculators couldn’t (or didn’t) parse edge cases, so they would get this equation wrong. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted rather than reprogram every calculator on earth, which is a rational decision I think. But that doesn’t make the old way wrong, anymore than it makes cursive writing the wrong way to shape letters.
No, that video is wrong. Not only that, if you check the letter he referenced Lennes’ Letter, you’ll find it doesn’t support his assertion that the rules changed at all! And that’s because they didn’t change. Moral of the story Always check the references.
Only if that’s what the programmer has programmed it to do, which is unfortunately most programmers. The correct conversion is 2(4)=(2x4).
in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do
Actually it’s only in the 90’s that some calculators started getting it wrong - prior to that they all gave correct answers.
Under pemdas divisor operators must literally be completed after multiplication. They are not of equal priority unless you restructure the problem to be of multiplication form, which requires making assumptions about the intent of the expression.
Okay, let me put it in other words: Pemdas and bodmas are bullshit. They are made up to help you memorise the order of operations. Multiplication and division are on the same level, so you do them linearly aka left to right.
Pemdas and bodmas are not bullshit, they are a standard to disambiguate expression communication. They are order of operations. Multiplication and division are not on the same level, they are distinct operations which form the identity when combined with a multiplication.
Similarly, log(x) and e^x are not the same operation, but form identity when composited.
Formulations of division in algebra allow it to be at the same priority as multiplication by restructuring it as multiplication, but that requires formulating the expression a particular way. The ÷ operator however is strictly division. That’s its purpose. It’s not a fantastic operator for common usage because of this.
There are valid orders of operations, such as depmas which I just made up which would make the above expression extremely ambiguous. Completely mathematically valid, order of ops is an established convention, not mathematical fact.
But that’s not the same thing as 8÷2(2+2). 2x(2+2) is 2 Terms, 2(2+2) is 1 Term. 8÷2×(2+2)=16 ((2+2) is in the numerator), 8÷2(2+2)=1 (2(2+2) is in the denominator)
And both you and people arguing that it’s 1 would be wrong.
This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication sign between 2 and ( is often interpreted as having priority. This is all matter of convention.
I see what you're getting at but the issue isn't really the assumed multiplication symbol and it's priority. It's the fact that when there is implicit multiplication present in an algebraic expression, and really best practice for any math above algebra, you should never use the '÷' symbol. You need to represent the division as a numerator and denominator which gets rid of any ambiguity since the problem will explicitly show whether (2+2) is modifying the numerator or denominator. Honestly after 7th grade I can't say I ever saw a '÷' being used and I guess this is why.
There is another example where the pemdas is even better covered than a simple parenthetical multiplication, but the answer there is the same: It’s the arbitrary syntax, not the math rules.
You guys are both correct. It’s 16 and the problem is a syntax that implies a wrong order of operations. The syntax isn’t wrong, either, just implicative in your example and seemingly arbitrary in the other example I wish I remembered.
Under normal interpretations of pemdas this is simply wrong, but it’s ok. Left to right only applies very last, meaning the divisor operator must literally come after 2(4).
This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.
Pemdas puts division and multiplication on the same level, so 34/22 is 12 not 3. Implicit multiplication is also multiplication. It’s a question of convention, but by default, it’s 16.
Your position is that you disagree with established maths. So you’re kind of a maths-flatearther with your own theories, I get it. But for most people that just summarizes to “being wrong”.
I don’t know what you’re on about with your distributive law thing. That just states that a*(b + c) = a*b + a*c, and has literally no relation to notation.
I wasn’t. I quoted Maths textbooks, and if you read further you’ll find I also quoted historical Maths documents, as well as showed some proofs.
I didn’t say the distributive property, I said The Distributive Law. The Distributive Law isn’t ax(b+c)=ab+ac (2 terms), it’s a(b+c)=(ab+ac) (1 term), but inaccuracies are to be expected, given that’s a wikipedia article and not a Maths textbook.
I did read the answers, try doing that yourself
I see people explaining how it’s not ambiguous. Other people continuing to insist it is ambiguous doesn’t mean it is.
If you read the wikipedia article, you would find it also stating the distributive law, literally in the first sentence, which is just that the distributive property holds for elemental algebra. This is something you learn in elementary school, I don’t think you’d need any qualification besides that, but be assured that I am sufficiently qualified :)
By the way, Wikipedia is not intrinsically less accurate than maths textbooks. Wikipedia has mistakes, sure, but I’ve found enough mistakes (and had them corrected for further editions) in textbooks. Your textbooks are correct, but you are misunderstanding them. As previously mentioned, the distributive law is about an algebraic substitution, not a notational convention. Whether you write it as a(b+c) = ab + ac or as a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c is insubstantial.
also stating the distributive law, literally in the first sentence
Except what it states is the Distributive property, not The Distributive Law. If I call a Koala a Koala Bear, that doesn’t mean it’s a bear - it just means I used the wrong name. And again, not a Maths textbook - whoever wrote that demonstrably doesn’t know the difference between the property and the law.
This is something you learn in elementary school
No it isn’t. This is a year 7 topic. In Primary School they are only given bracketed terms without a coefficient (thus don’t need to know The Distributive Law).
be assured that I am sufficiently qualified
No, I’m not assured of that when you’re quoting wikipedia instead of Maths textbooks, and don’t know the difference between The Distributive Property and The Distributive Law, nor know which grade this is taught to.
Wikipedia is not intrinsically less accurate than maths textbooks
BWAHAHAHAHA! You know how many wrong things I’ve seen in there? And I’m not even talking about Maths! Ever heard of edit wars? Whatever ends up on the page is whatever the admin believes. Wikipedia is “like an encyclopedia” in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin.
but you are misunderstanding them
And yet you have failed to point out how/why/where. In all of your comments here, you haven’t even addressed The Distributive Law at all.
Whether you write it as a(b+c) = ab + ac or as a*(b+c) = ab + ac is insubstantial
And neither of those examples is about The Distributive Law - they are both to do with The Distributive Property (and you wrote the first one wrong anyway - it’s a(b+c)=(ab+ac). Premature removal of brackets is how many people end up with the wrong answer).
“In mathematics, the distributive property of binary operations is a generalization of the distributive law, which asserts that the equality x*(y+z) = x*y + x*z is always true in elementary algebra.”
This is the first sentence of the article, which clearly states that the distributive property is a generalization of the distributive law, which is then stated.
Make sure you can comprehend that before reading on.
To make your misunderstanding clear: You seem to be under the impression that the distributive law and distributive property are completely different statements, where the only difference in reality is that the distributive property is a property that some fields (or other structures with a pair of operations) may have, and the distributive law is the statement that common algebraic structures like the integers and the reals adhere to the distributive property.
I don’t know which school you went to or teach at, but this certainly is not 7th year material.
If you don’t want to see why you’re wrong that’s your thing, but I tried. I can just say, try to re-read the math textbook you took pictures of, and try to understand it.
About the ambiguity: If I write f^{-1}(x), without context, you have literally no way of knowing whether I am talking about a multiplicative or a functional inverse, which means that it is ambiguous. It’s correct notation in both cases, used since forever, but you need to explicitly disambiguate if you want to use it.
I hope this helps you more than the stackexchange post?
If I write f^{-1}(x), without context, you have literally no way of knowing whether I am talking about a multiplicative or a functional inverse, which means that it is ambiguous
The inverse of the function is f(x)^-1. i.e. the negative exponent applies to the whole function, not just the x (since f(x) is a single term).
We’ve been at this point, I’m not going to explain this again. But you weren’t able to read a single sentence of a wikipedia article without me handfeeding it to you, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I’m sorry for your students.
Apparently you can’t read either textbooks or wikipedia and understand it.
Also, wait, you’re just a tutor and not actually a teacher? Being wrong about some incredibly basic thing in your field is one thing, but lying about that is just disrespectful, especially since you drop that in basically every sentence.
I’m not using logic in this case, you are just being insincere. Let me know when you bother to try to understand anything I or the authors of your holy textbooks wrote.
Back in gradeschool I was always taught that in Pemdas, the parenthesis are assumed to be there in 8÷(2×(2+2)) where as 8÷2×(2+2) would be 16, 8÷2(2+2) is the above and equals 1.
Not quite. It's true you resolve what's inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Now this is what gets most people. Even though Multiplication technically comes before Division the Acronym PEMDAS, that's really just to make it sound correct phonetically. Really they have equal priority in the order of operations and the appropriate way to resolve the problem is to work from left to right solving each multiplication or division sign as you encounter them. Giving you 16. Same for addition and subtraction.
So basically the true order of operations is:
Work left to right solving anything inside parentheses
Work left to right solving any exponentials
Work left to right solving any multiplication or division
Work left to right solving any addition or subtraction
Source: Mechanical Engineering degree so an unfortunate amount of my life spent in math and physics classes.
It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Not “inside parenthesis” (Primary School, when there’s no coefficient), “solve parentheses” (High School, The Distributive Law). Also 8÷2(4)=8÷(2x4) - prematurely removing brackets is how a lot of people end up with the wrong answer (you can’t remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside).
Absolutely, its all seen as equal so it has to go left to right However as I said in the beginning the way I was taught atleast, is when you see 2(2+2) and not 2×(2+2) you assume that 2(2+2) actually means (2×(2+2 )) and so must do it together.
Ah sorry just realized what you were saying. I've never been taught that. Maybe it's just a difference in teaching styles, but it shouldn't be since it can actually change the outcome. The way I was always taught was if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there.
So you were taught that 2(2+2) == (2(2+2))
I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)
Interesting difference though because again, assuming invisible parentheses can really change up how a problem is done.
Edit: looks like theshatterstone54's comment assumed a multiplication symbol as well.
Privately owned cars are fine, but we should abolish minimum parking requirements in zoning codes and outlaw on-street parking. Keep your car, but good fucking luck finding somewhere to park it!
We should also put all of the societal cost of car ownership and usage on car owners, then. No more subsidizing cars.
But at that point, car ownership becomes so expensive that only the rich can afford it. Which means they get to zoom around on largely uncongested roads while everyone else can’t.
And that doesn’t sit well with me, therefore I’m for a blanket ban.
We should also do this for commercial trucks. They cause the vast majority of road damage because of their weight and should pay for the vast majority of road maintenance costs. Charge the true price for freight and then see how profitable it is to ship things to houses.
We the people are subsidizing the for profit trucking industry and that is wrong.
Eating meat and dairy is not sustainable in terms of resources and greenhouse gases, and non-vegan environmentalists are clowns on the level of people flying private jets to climate conferences.
Well the main flaw in your reasoning is thinking that it’s an issue addressed at the individual level rather than a greater systemic issue that cannot be addressed by the choice of individuals. And on top of that you colpevolise would-be allies whose life you don’t know, ironically playing right into oil tycoons and meat industry’s hands
And that’s cool and all but ain’t no way you will convince everyone to quit eating meat. Especially given that it’s not always a matter of choosing. Even then acting morally superior ain’t helping.
It’s the same discussion with cars, people will do whatever is most convenient and available, if you don’t want people to use cars you don’t go around telling tjem not to use it, you act on the city’s design and public transport to make it so it is convenient to use the alternatives and then you start banning cars from city centers, then move towards the periphery, etc etc. All these are actions taken at the source. Sure telling people to mot use cars as much, to carpool, etc will help a bit but it ain’t gonna solve your issues chief.
I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that industrial meat and dairy is not sustainable. Communal farms could be.
I saw it somewhere, and now I use it all the time. If you need an example of why capitalism is destined to fail, just look at the cheese caves. We have to bury cheese like nuclear waste just to be able to keep its market value up to a level that makes it worth producing.
This so much this. A mostly vegetarian lifestyle with the occasional meat IS sustainable. People forget that before industrialization, we ate meat like once every one or two weeks. You could count the number of times we ate meat in a month on one han
it's not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it's de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it's like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it's just a common bias.
you can't get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can't eat grass. that's right we can't. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I'm sorry but it won't. too bad if it's boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
but most people don’t want to eat what we feed to livestock. and a lot of what we do feed to livestock is actually parts of plants that we have already taken what we want from. another significant part of livestock food is just grazed grass, which takes almost no effort on our part and which we can’t eat anyway.
it’s cute you think i haven’t. i have some real problems with poore-nemecek 2018, and i will flat-out dismiss any paper based on it. i was recently linked to one that came out same year but whose author i cannot remember that dealt with LCAs that also had terrible methodology. if those two papers are representative at all of the state of the current research into agricultural ecology, the field is a fucking disgrace to the academy. and, unfortunately, many of the papers that have come out in the last 5 years are based on poore-nemecek, and should be rigorously evaluated.
but since you seem like you have read some papers on the subject, do you have any to suggest?
the owid links are heavily dependent on poore-nemecek and i’m not going to bother trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there. i don’t know if i’ve seen cassidy2013 or Erb 2016, but i will certainly be digging into them and their methodology. i am very concerned about the fact that poore-nemecek shows up in the references for Eisen 2022. if you’ve read these can you explain the methodology? if not, can i task you with actually reading eisen et al (and its references) so you can explain its methodology while i read the other two?
Oh no this would be a waste of your time I’m afraid I’m not a researcher in this field but follow the work of some. Unfortunately they are not active around here so I can’t even tag them.
You seems pretty articulate tho. Can I ask for your credentials?
Why would you wanna fight aging when we reproduce in such a massive way that we are pretty much doomed? The last thing we need is a bunch of 120 year olds who rule the world.
Well the old people in power just gets replaced withother old people. Making people grow old and die isn’t working against dictators either.
But your idea is that it would be better if we became ill even earlier then, like we should stop fighting aging the way we do it today (medicin, operations, transplants…)?
How about we solve the quality of life issues with higher age first before we work on extending the lifespan even more. Nobody benefits from old senile people who have to stay in bed all day and can’t see properly having a few more years of suffering in that state.
So you’d prefer be a decripit sick old person, today already?
Most people thinks they’d change their mind and sort of welcome death at old age, but barring a very small number, nah, they want to live on as much as you and me today.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
Honestly I feel like the idea of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is so lame. Like I understand that you could find something technically ethically wrong with everything, but that statement just feels like a way for people who don’t want to give up certain things to justify themselves.
Capitalism, especially modern day capitalism where the government and companies collaborate, does lead to a lot of ethical issues. And yes, I understand that it is not liveable to give up everything that is unethical. But you can still have boundaries.
I mean like, buying oats and grains from a grocery store, which are typically grown domestically, compared to buying dead abused animals or bananas from a company that uses slave labor. Those are totally different things.
If you prioritize buying things that are made in countries that have better labor laws, and avoid animal products, then that’s a pretty damn good start.
Once governments stop or reduce funding for the meat and dairy industries, prices will continue to go up and more people will be like you. At the end of the day, animal products (especially those from bovines) aren’t super sustainable and cost a lot more than we pay at the supermarket.
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
I think as something like a burger it’s not that great but stuff like shepherds pie or meatballs where I’m adding other ingredients and seasoning it’s indistinguishable. I even fooled my whole family with some homemade beyond meatballs.
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you’re comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.
you choose what you consume, but don't put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it's fair to state this fact.
Sorry, but I just don’t think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It’s rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.
This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.
No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It’s our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.
no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.
we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.
don't return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it's not debatable.
you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it's totally ok. but own your choices, you don't need to justify them.
we all are full of contradiction, and it's more than ok. but don't make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don’t just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That’s too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn’t keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I’m taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I’m supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
human are omnivore, it's a biological trait not a diet. Being omnivore doesn't mean that you need to consume animal products, in the contrary, it means that you can avoid them and still strive, as opposed as carnivore.
own your choices, plain and simple. don't blame other for taking action to reduce suffering, CO2 and waste of ressources.
I think our ancestors also hunted large game which is why we evolved to be endurance hunters. Not that we are bound so tightly to our evolutionary as all that. But still.
I support vegans and respect their decisions, I just have little interest in being one myself.
Although when I buy leather products (belts shoes) I tend to buy ones that last decades. So there’s that. And yeah I try to reduce meat consumption and I strive to do better.
What? You’re saying that because we needed leather in the past, we can’t wear cotton now to keep warm? At one point we didn’t have easy access to plant-based proteins so we should continue eating animal products? By that logic, we didn’t have vaccines in the past, so does that mean we can’t use them now? Our ancestors also didn’t have the internet, so why are you here?
The past was a completely different world. Don’t let it hold you back from doing better now.
I’ve had debates with vegans on something similar:
I’m not vegan, I’ll never be vegan. That’s a complete non-starter for me.
What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I’ll be all over that. I still won’t be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They’re never interested. It’s all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It’s as though they’re a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
“Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3”
“Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now” (in reference to meatless Mondays)
I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don’t.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat “humane” meat. I put “humane” in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don’t personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
Ahh yeah about that: My reasons are not what you’re calling “moral”. We are naturally omnivores. We’ve been omnivorous since before we came down from the trees. Probably since before we left the water. I don’t have a problem eating meat. I think a vegan diet is unnatural for us, though I have no issues with anyone who chooses that lifestyle.
My reasons are from a sustainability/environmental position. Our present consumption levels already put a strain on the planet, and we sure couldn’t sustain it if everyone on the planet ate meat three meaty meals a day. This is another reason I’m all about that lab grown meat.
I don't eat meat or dairy, so i technically i'm a vegan, right? But i wouldn't identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i'm at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don't support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn't have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don't think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you'll always be a childfucker.
Eh... Okay, i'll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it's not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it's more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
For me it is the wholesale - “Everyone can do this, it is a moral failing on your part that you aren’t already vegan” that irks me.
I have a combination of diseases that mean I could never go vegan, but every single time I have interacted with a vegan online they take the stance that I am lying/wrong and just justifying my choices. Well - My choice is to not die of malnutrition while being tied to a toilet 24/7.
Like yes, random internet vegan - You certainly know my dietary needs better than my doctor and I do…
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It's always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage on the topic respectfully. And you ask good questions.
I have spent some time pondering the choice of veganism vs meat eating vs vegetarianism in the past.
I agree it is important to examine one’s emotional reactions. That is how, ultimately, I left behind religion. And that experience is what colors my view and provides the answer to my reaction.
To wit, one of the (many) things that I chafed against was people dictating to me what my morality must be as if they are the final arbiters of absolute morality. It is one thing to disagree, to share your own morality, to state your beliefs. To state what the other person must believe, that is what I find annoying.
It’s an interesting topic because one then has to ask, what is the difference between this and me arguing with a bigot? I believe very strongly that people are all on equal footing and of equal regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender identity / expression, etc.
So how do I engage with racists…and why? E.g., Is it to change their minds? I mean that would be nice. But really it is to make certain their viewpoint never goes unchallenged.
And if I am morally reprehensible to a vegan, does that give them the right to challenge me? Yes. Does it give them the right to tell me what my morality must be? Hmm. If yes then I have the right to tell bigots what their morality must be too and I haven’t grounds for complaint if someone does this to me. If no, then I may need to engage differently with bigots.
Now I could argue “but I am right about bigotry” and “being omnivorous isn’t actually wrong” … But that’s from my perspective. I’m trying to step out of my belief system to look at this.
It isn’t the scientific facts that are an issue; I am aware of them and don’t dispute them. I have no qualms about reducing or eliminating most of the meat industry based on its environmental impacts. And I do wish to reduce my meat consumption on those grounds, not on moral grounds.
To a bigot, your challenges are annoying so they would avoid talking with you. So if you do want to engage with them, constantly (and aggressively) challenging their bigotry will prevent that. But why would you want to interact with bigots unless you absolutely had to? Their bigotry chafes you as much or more than your challenges chafe them. But also, if you live in some backwater place, and constantly seeking out and challenging bigotry means everybody around you wants nothing to do with you, then you’re going to have a rough time.
In the same way, a vegan person challenging your dietary choices chafes you, and they may feel (and you may understand) that they have every reason to make the challenge, but it still is likely to prevent you wanting to engage with them. If most people around them are not vegan, and they seek out opportunities to challenge people, they’re going to have a bad time.
But I also think there is a big difference between being in the minority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. vegans in meat-eating society) and being the majority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. religious area and self-righteous pricks starting conversations by asking if you are worried about going to hell).
It’s about decreasing demand not decreasing waste. The purpose of flexitarianism is to reduce the demand for animal byproducts. Food waste is a much bigger issue at chain restaurants, especially fast food as it’s often thrown out at the end of the shift as spoilage.
Food waste in American homes is miniscule compared to the food waste in chain restaurants and fast food. You eating or not eating that steak is a mouse fart in a hurricane. There aren’t enough mice to turn this train around. Food waste needs to be tackled in a very different way than demand. A vegan restaurant is just as likely to waste food as an omnivore restaurant is.
Add comment