But could the average hunter still hunt without the help of modern technology? Those who are entirely unable to do so are obviously not apex predators.

A lion can hunt any day without relying on a rifle, the vast majority of hunters could not.

So if you are smart enough to develop ranged weapons

Hunters that can build their own bows or spears and are able to hunt with them are genuine apex predators, that’s fair.

Those who are completely reliant on industrially produced high tech firearms bought in a store, and would be outcompeted by any house cat without them, are not.

So apex that even hunters need firearms because they’re not fit enough to hunt without them nowadays, and unable to improvise and use self made weapons like the og hunters did.

I guess people that drive a forklift are “apex powerlifters” too.

Ich stimme dir zu dass Schritte in die richtige Richtung als positiv angesehen und ermutigt werden sollten, anstatt da negativ drauf zu reagieren. Egal ob es z.B. um das Thema Massentierhaltung oder Klimaschutz oder sonst ein Problem geht. Die meisten Menschen können Überzeugungen und Gewohnheiten nur schrittweise hinterfragen und ändern, so ist die menschliche Psychologie einfach.

Wenn jetzt aber ein Teil der Bevölkerung Hunde und Katzen so behandeln würde wie die Tiere in der Massentierhaltung behandelt werden, und ein anderer Teil der Bevölkerung das weiterhin als absolute Tierquälerei ablehnen würde, dann würden die letzteren sich auch sehr schwer damit tun ein “nur noch einem Hund in der Woche die Kehle durchscheiden zu lassen statt zwei” als (Zwischen-)Lösung zu befürworten. Aus ihrer Sicht würden sie damit Tierquälerei als vertretbar darstellen und legitimieren, was im direkten Konflikt mit ihren grundlegenden Überzeugungen steht.

Aus rationaler Sicht braucht gesellschaftlicher Wandel viel Zeit und Mühe, und Fortschritt bringt auch immer Wiederstand und Rückschläge mit sich, wie wir es gerade leider auch beim Klima sehen. Wenn etwas aber so emotional aufgeladen ist und einem so wichtig ist, dann sind viele Menschen emotional nicht dazu bereit diese bittere Pille zu akzeptieren. Das ist denke ich der Hauptgrund für diese “Ganz oder gar nicht” Haltung.

Die Frage ist ob es für einen Priorität hat dass es Tieren gut geht, oder ob man Tieren für den eigenen Genuss Schaden zufügen würde bzw. schaden zufügen lässt.

Wer ein paar Minuten des guten Geschmacks über das Leben eines Tieres stellt und Gewalttaten an Tieren befürwortet und mitfinanziert, ist von seinen Handlungen her ganz weit von einem Tierfreund entfernt. Egal ob es einem auch Spaß macht einen Hund zu streicheln oder nicht.

Wenn Tieren die Kehle durchzuschneiden und Tierfreund zu sein kein Widerspruch ist, dann können Kannibalen auch Menschenfreunde sein. Vorausgesetzt ihre Opfer hatten ein gutes Leben, wurden vor der Schlachtung betäubt, und so weiter. Ist schließlich auch gut fürs Gewissen.

Appeasement is a terrible idea when we’re talking about Nazis, it has never worked and will never work. I don’t get why people are so ignorant about history. I guess you’re not part of a minority that would get brutalized or murdered under their rule? Otherwise you probably wouldn’t attempt to play nice with literal Nazis.

It’s really irritating to watch this shit unfold as a German. You guys are basically begging fascists to take over at this point.

Cruel cultural traditions make (good) people support horrible acts. A tale as old as time.

Fortunately plant-based alternatives have been growing and improving quite fast for 10-20 years now, so I’m hopeful that even those who “could never give up meat” might stop supporting those hell holes. I was one of them, after all.

Kabecz have been charged with several offences, including killing or injuring animals; causing unnecessary suffering to an animal; failing to provide adequate medical attention for an animal when it is wounded or ill; inflicting upon an animal acute suffering, serious injury or harm, or extreme anxiety or distress that significantly impairs its health or well-being.

Just inflict the same things on “farm animals” and it’s not only socially acceptable, but the average person will gladly buy the products, and therefore fund the abuse on factory farms.

We certainly have a looong way to go to become a decent society based on that metric.

Seems like they haven’t gained traction since the reddit exodus. I wonder how the other alternatives are doing. Lemmy has a decent amount of activity at least, although I still wish more people would use it.

We gotta spread the word. It still seems very achievable if enough people become aware of it.

What makes you think that processing food through an animal is healthier than through a factory?

You have to compare the actual nutrients contained in the product to draw any conclusion about health effects, and the macros are fairly similar for the plant-based versions compared to a given meat product.

The average person (in developed countries) eats significantly more meat than the recommended upper limit by nutrition organizations.

If you just go by the naturalistic argument, you’d conclude that processed drinking water is worse than untreated water, and that vaccines are worse than “perfectly natural” diseases. It’s a common logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

To me that’s more ethical than killing of billions of animals, and the latter is considered ethical.

I think most people would actually consider factory farming unethical, they just put the blame on the producers for treating animals like shit. And the producers are locked into a race to the bottom for competitive prices, so they’d blame the customers/market conditions.

It’s kind of funny, having the calves slaughtered to get the milk that is naturally meant for them is considered vegetarian (as long as you personally don’t eat the veal).

If they’re kept on abusive factory farms, that’s still vegetarian.

When the dairy cows gets their throats slit because milk production drops below profitablity after ~5 years, the milk is still seen as vegetarian (as long as someone else buys the meat).

No matter how much death and suffering takes place at the farm, the milk is seen as vegetarian. But at rennet, that’s where they draw the line.

Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup.

I guess most the 400.000 - 800.000 Euromaidan protestors were CIA agents in Russias view then?

It’s well known that many people in Eastern European countries don’t trust Russia one bit after their experiences in the USSR. Of course there’s enormous pushback when politicians in power try to strengthen ties with Putin (and cut ties to EU countries), it would be really weird if there weren’t. The same would happen in Poland and many other Eastern European countries who were staunchly anti Putin long before the invasion, even though they don’t have an immediate threat from a shared border with Russia.

In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should’ve been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started.

Before the war, people weren’t really aware of the situation in Ukraine and there were 100 other problems that seemed more urgent, so there just wasn’t any political pressure to do something.

As far as I can see, it’s just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests

Western countries just stood by in the first days and did nothing, as they had no hopes for Ukraine surviving for more than a few days. If the Ukrainian public weren’t willing to push back, they would’ve had no chance to stop the Russian advances and their government would’ve collapsed in days, just as both Russia and the West predicted.

It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fled from the occupied territories, and accepting that they will never get their relatives and homes back will be unthinkable for a large part of them, especially after the reports of forced relocations from occupied regions into Russia (including thousands of children) and all the suffering that Putin has brought upon Ukrainians. Maybe they will reach the point of making concessions if they see no hope of retaking the territory. Ultimately this has to be decided by the Ukrainian people.

You said that they are a reactionary government, but you also implied that their reactionary justification to invade is legitimate.

You said you “don’t fully agree” with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn’t provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.

I also wouldn’t expect people who are criticial of war to say that they “don’t fully agree” with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.

Yeah, I don’t fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war

Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s

But the majority of us loves our animals

And when the milk production drops, the vast majority of dairy cows get their throat slit and their bodies sold for profit. I surely wouldn’t treat those that I love that way, but I guess animal farmers just have a very different concept of “loving animals” compared to people who have pets, for example.

The NSDAP had no issues working with Russia, as long as it was in their interest.

With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren’t sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That’s what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.

If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it’s inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.

You wouldn’t need to sterilize more deer for population control than with hunting, obviously. You’d need to sterilize less in total because they’d still compete for food and habitat, just have no offspring. How is that unfeasible? I never said that you’d have to sterilize every single one lol, just enough to impact the fertility of their population in regions where its necessary due to human influence.