I advocate for logical and consistent viewpoints on controversial topics. If you’re looking at my profile, I’ve probably made you mad by doing so.

  • 32 Posts
  • 410 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle









  • I think we have to focus on individual action AND hold corporations accountable. The thing I see over and over is people blaming one or the other, but many corporations only pollute as much as they do BECAUSE of individuals using their products or services (see the plastics industry for one example). I do believe that corporations should be financially liable for helping cleanup of any waste they create.

    Oh, and outlaw private fucking jets.

    Geoengineering can work on a limited scale (cloud seeding, blasting ocean water into the air, etc.), but especially in smaller countries, would require buy-in from neighbour countries to avoid conflict. Some of the solutions I’ve seen presented are pretty massive in scale and would need nearly the whole world involved to accomplish.

    As someone who had forestry and ecology in high school, I think environmental impact education would be valuable in a class focusing on life education (in Canada, we called it Career And Life Management or CALM for short at the time). Of course, some thing has to be given up to do that, and I would suggest rolling back a lot of the mathematics requirements and placing them in college courses where they used to be. As an anecdote, my grandfather worked with the Canadian Space Agency and was stumped by my grade 10 math homework 25 years ago. He said a lot of what I was learning in Math 10 was stuff that was in advanced courses in college when he was younger. One of these skillsets is far more useful broadly in education and life…





  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    You are most certainly purposefully misunderstanding things at this stage.

    Yes, I wasn’t arguing for (or against) veganism and never stated I was. I was arguing against reasons some may give and defending logical ones.

    No, veganism isn’t a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person’s stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don’t claim that everyone in a group must also ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.

    And no, punishing murder is not a moral stance, it’s a self-preservationist stance. If you can go out and murder indiscriminately, then you yourself can be murdered just as easily.

    I’m sorry you don’t understand logic. Please don’t attempt to explain to me one of my degrees when you clearly don’t have even a loose grasp on the concept. Here’s a free course you can take to better understand logic as opposed to a personal moral stance.


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I also wasn’t arguing against their dietary choices. I was showing that their arguments could be turned back on themselves because they were spurious at best.

    Before I replied, the now-deleted user was stating that there was no reason to eat meat unless you’re a psychopath and love murder and was threatening suicide, violence to others, and other such garbage throughout the thread, then followed it up with a stream of PMs to a bunch of users including myself with some… not great / illegal content (we’ll say).

    My response was purely a “let’s look at your statements, but in good faith” exercise.

    Put simply, they started attacking food choices first and I called them on it. I’m okay with what I said.


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    23 days ago

    Fair warning: The account you’re arguing with is a troll account who bad-faith argues with everyone, as evidenced by their post history - they often simply have their posts deleted by mods. It’s best to block and move on.

    As much as I hate echo chamber-ing, when it comes to trolls, it is occasionally required.



  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again

    You weren’t supposed to pick this option.

    The post you’re citing was not the 7 month old one I was referencing anywhere. Also, the one you cherry-picked was from a year ago and isn’t anti-vegan either. It’s anti-logically unsound argument (kind of like this one here). I can agree with a stance and disagree with the reason someone does something. I agree with multiple reasons to be vegan explicitly in the post you cite.

    And escalating the issue is in concern about the hundreds of rampant bannings, not the veganism.

    Also, if that was what you call a parody, you are pretty terrible at parody.


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    For full clarity of what occurred (and not that my diet is any of your concern, but since you brought it up):

    1. I am not vegan, but have been greatly reducing my meat intake and have been toying with going vegetarian.
    2. I was kicked from a vegan Community I have never posted in and was about to do for the first time to thank someone for something I found interesting.
    3. I do not know why I was kicked from a vegan Community. The reason was cited as a rule that I did not violate. I found hundreds of other bans while looking for why I was banned.
    4. I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome. This should be irrelevant to what occurred with these bans.
    5. I did all discussion in a single thread specifically created to discuss veganism in a discussion Community on a completely different instance.
    6. The Strawman comment is you claiming I’m somehow screaming “1984” because of the ban. I am not.
    7. You are being needlessly combative and creating arguments based on assumption. That is the definition of a strawman.
    8. My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

    Is that enough for you to parse what has occurred, or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again?