distic
6mo ago
You can feed it to some other animal then, the cow is the worse.
distic
6mo ago
Yes but we wouldn't produce the forage in the first place. Or you can burn it to produce energy (and CO2 is still better than CH4)
distic
6mo ago
The land used for the grass and the cereals could be used for something else (growing trees, for example). And by eating the grass and anything green in the grass cow do prevent trees to grow.
Moreover the grass produces CO2 if it's not eaten by some other animal while the cow produces CH4. CH4 has a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 and then it quite rapidly degrades and becomes CO2.
distic
6mo ago
I don't know how the beef lobby computes it (and whether they import cereal from foreign countries) but if you take account for all animal feed (not just beef) it is more than 7%:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-cereals-animal-feed?tab=chart
release more methane than would be released by the natural decomposition of the forage material?
Honestly I don't know but the point is not to let the cereal decompose, that would be dumb. It's to use those lands to produce something else, something that wouldn't produce any CH4 and ideally that would absorb a bit of it. Anyway it would be better to burn the cereals and to produce energy with it (we get no CH4 - worse than CO2 - and more energy).
distic
6mo ago
Yes it is a cycle, but if you replace a cycle where the carbon exists 500 years as a tree and 70 years as CO2 by a cycle where it exists 1 year as corn, 14 years as a cow and 70 years as CO2 it has a huge impact on the quantity of CO2 in the air.
Anyway oil is also natural, it did not magically appear under the ground. It's just a very long cycle.
And by the way I don't care about vegans, anyone thinking bees should consent to give you their honey is dumb
distic
6mo ago
I meant CH4, and the problem is not the ranching it's the cereal production to feed cows.
distic
6mo ago
I don't think the main point against eating animal meat is the fact that it kills animals, but the impact on environment and the land efficiency. To eat a pound of beef, you need the cow to eat a lot of grass, which takes a lot more land than producing a pound of vegetables. Moreover, cows produce a lot of CO which has a huge climate impact.
distic
6mo ago
People here take the view that it is somehow related to modern feminism, but it might not be. Women, for centuries (at least since Lucretia killed herself), have been trained to think that a rape was worse than death, because death takes your life but rape takes your honor, and in this old-fashioned theory a life without honor is not worth living. Moreover, women have also be trained to say they don't want sex ; if they admit they would prefer to be with a man than with a bear, what would people think? Do you really think Lucretia would have preferred the man over the bear?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with modern feminism. Actually, I think the old fashioned honor is responsible for a large part of modern feminism, as opposed to earlier feminism. In the seventies with the sexual liberation movement the accent was on having more sex, not less. The idea of a rape was somewhat conservative, as it assumed that it was important to women to not have sex in some circumstances. By the way, it also lead to a lot of abuses. With AIDS, Reagan and Thatcher, the conservative gained ground and feminists began to insist on the consent of women and her individual rights as opposed to "sexual freedom". The modern emphasis on rape is a result of both earlier feminism and the conservative ideology.
distic
8mo ago
I think it goes against the common morality because:
(1) Old people aren't supposed to need as much money as their children, they typically don't need to pay their mortgage anymore and don't have children to take care of. A couple of pensioners with 80k$/year is a lot richer than a couple of middle age parents with the same revenue.
(2) When the parents die their money will typically be split evenly and it means that the richest sibling is paying for the others
(3) It's not easy to know what share of the success of the child is a result of the parents' labor and what is the result of the child's own merit. If the children owe something to their parents, it is probably proportional to their average income (because the parents' labor should have been shared evenly among the children and thus any variation between them is supposed to depend only on the individual labor of each child)
distic
8mo ago
I don't really know. I don't think there is any disparate impact law, you'd have to prove the disparate impact is intentionnal and thus that it falls in the scope of the anti discrimination law.
France has laws against racial discrimination
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000006165298/
Discrimination as defined in articles 225-1 to 225-1-2, committed against a natural or legal person, is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros when it consists in:
1° Refusing to supply a good or service;
2° Obstructing the normal exercise of any economic activity;
3° Refusing to hire, punishing or dismissing a person;
4° to subordinate the supply of a good or service to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;
5° To make an offer of employment, a request for an internship or a period of training in a company subject to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;
6° To refuse to accept a person for one of the internships referred to in 2° of article L. 412-8 of the Social Security Code.
Where the discriminatory refusal referred to in 1° is committed in a place open to the public or with the aim of preventing access to it, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
distic
8mo ago
Because it's visible, so it's easy to organize around it. People will know what side you are just by looking at you.
distic
9mo ago
He lived for 41 years and was probably a drug addict for 10 years at least, so the probability that he dies the same week as Navalny is not higher than 1/500. Obviously you would need to count all drug addicts that could have died at the same time and perhaps there are more than 500, but I doubt it.
I admit the elections thing are just a hypothesis. However when three people opposing Putin die the same week, at least one of them is mudered and you can't get the body of the most famous, my basic assumption is that the three of them were actually murdered.
distic
9mo ago
Among those people who are projected to die, how many of them are not even in their fifties? Do you really believe the helicopter pilot wasn't murdered?
I can get that you believe it's independant from navalny's death, even if it seems unlikely to me, but to assume that he is just one of those people who would have died anyway is just ridiculous. If I want to be as sacarastic as you I can ask if you think that Prigozhin was also just some unfortunate accident? I mean there are quite a few plane accidents, so it's that impossible, I suppose
distic
9mo ago
I think we won't be able to agree but it's still quite weird that 3 people opposed to Putin in a way or another die within a week... what's the probability that it happens at random?
Why not them?
I guess he cannot just choose to kill anyone, there are practical limits. They must have searched for the pilot since he defected.
distic
9mo ago
Yes he was a drug addict but he had been for years and he dies the same day as Navalny.
And now a pilot who defected to Ukraine and lived in Spain...
distic
9mo ago
Now Dmitri Markov is also dead. The probability thatthey weren't both directly murdered is now very low...
distic
9mo ago
Most western leaders did not explicitly reference the history of suspicious deaths of opposition leaders (and the fact that Navalny was poisoned once). It's just obvious to everyone
distic
9mo ago
There are "elections" in Russia one month from now. Elections are a dangerous time for the power in place, even in Russia, because people can choose this time to protest. Putin just wanted to make it clear that no opposition will be allowed.
distic
9mo ago
Your core point is not clear because it is an anti-analogy. Analogies are not helpful to begin with, but anti-analogies are even worse. It needs to be clarified, but let me help.
I agree that any citizen committed to democracy should make sure that the electoral process is fair. This means, above all, that the legal procedures in place have been respected, and also that nothing has occurred which cannot be codified but which seriously calls into question the sincerity of the ballot. I think you agree, but contradict me if you don't.
However, here's where it gets complicated: questioning the results (in bad faith) is also a way of trying to cheat. So a citizen committed to democracy should also view any accusations of fraud with circumspection.
He or she should therefore demand that anyone making such accusations provides, perhaps not evidence, but factual elements that lead him or her to believe that irregularities have been committed and that they are of such a nature as to call the results into question. Tell me where I'm wrong.
distic
9mo ago
As I've touched upon before I think liberals tend treat the relative peace and prosperity of societies such as the US and EU as though it were a physical law (like gravity), rather than something that has to be actively cultivated and maintained
But that is precisely why losers should be required to provide proofs when they contest an election! Otherwise no peace is possible because the losers will always contest the results because it will always be in their best interest.
distic
9mo ago
I like your pragmatism. There is a related argument: once there is democracy, the opposition candidate policy doesn't matter much, because you can choose another one if you want to.
distic
10mo ago
You are comparing the US to countries were homosexuality is forbidden, sometimes leading to death penalty, while the original comparison was with Europe
The reason is that people eat a lot of beef. Farmers don't try to optimize the environmental impact of our food, they optimize their revenue (and they are right to do so).
More options
Context Copy link