Well the vegans have a few critical issues with their logic.
The average vegan diet actually kills more animals due to pesticides, monocrop agriculture, soil quality degradation, etc etc than that of that of an omnivorous diet. But nobody cares about this because who cares that a couple trillion bugs, beetles, spiders, worms etc died when a couple million cute fluffy little animals died. If it was about saving life then they could do more by not getting a smartphone u know how many human child slaves died to make this thing?
The environmental impact is a mute point because we physically do not globally have enough existing farmland that can support the crops required to produce enough protein sustainably, eg u can farm cattle on a million acres of half desert good luck growing crops their.
Then their the whole evolution argument. We beat every single animal in the African planes not because we where smarter fasted stronger better but because more calories = bigger brain = smarter, we got said additional calories because we discovered 2 things. Smack bone with rock get marrow. 2 put meat in fire more calories. We literally won evolution because we can eat meat more efficiently than other animals could.
Then their is the whole consent thing. Bees can up a leave a hive at any point they want, they do not because they pay honey taxes to the smart monkeys who in exchange offer absolute protection. Bees consented to us eating their honey therefore honey is vegan.
Then u get to the point where u realise evolutionarily most of the species we eat we artificially created and protected putting them in the most successfull evolutionary niche in the history of our planet. That being human support class ie food. Are we using them or are they using us? It looks like a symbiotic relationship to me. Whats the difference between this and the bacteria in my gut cos i sure as shit didnt ask my shit if it consented to be my literal fucking shit.
And finally the pro lifer chicken argument. Why cant u kill a non fertilised chicken egg but u can kill a fertilised human egg? Is it the consent of the eggs creator thats required? Chickens dont exist naturally they are an artificial species that we created so i guess if we can consent to eat a chickens egg on behalf of the chicken really depends on what came first the chicken or the egg?
I have no idea why people think chickens look stupid when they walk... to me, the way they walk just looks like the way they walk. And the prospect of a T-Rex being that alert and agile is pretty terrifying.
What I've never been able to wrap my head around is how did they use their tiny arms, and for what?
Only thing I can think of is that they might have used them to brace themselves on the ground while leaning down past their balance point to eat. Doesn't seem like a very useful thing to have arms just for that though
Man, I decided to do just that, and it was almost exactly what I thought (minus the technical words): if a velociraptor can do a metric fuckle of damage with their two hook-toes, a T-Rex with 2 of those on each hand can fuck something up, presuming it's close enough (which, as the T-Rex head/bite-force, and distance from the jaw suggests), would have been pretty frequently.
Even if each claw only did a little damage, that's still a lot of blood loss throughout the conflict, and the T-Rex would be more likely to win.
Fundamentally, there is no right or wrong and there are any number of ways you can morally frame something. Usually "things that benefit me and those close to me" are good, "things that hinder me and those close to me" are bad. But at the end of the day it is all subjective, be it on an individual, family, societal, or global level.
I do see your point, it would probably look funny from a safe distance....
Chicken (especially roosters) can be vicious. Up close, a dinosaur-sized chicken would be freaking terrifying!
Def 100 chicken sized t-rex, they’re not pack hunters, so you won’t have to deal with a big coordinated attack. Just have to fight the tiny-rex a few at a time.
I've played enough Zelda to know that chickens do attack in packs so why wouldn't a T-Rex and how do we know? For all we know they were purple and sang songs.
Fun fact, Danny Sexbang had ZERO idea about that feature despite playing Link to the Past growing up. It wasn't until Arin Hanson forced him to repeatedly attack them. Then we got to hear Dannys reaction in realtime for the first time ever seeing what happens.
Unless you accidentally punt the one that makes the toilet wine… then you’ll have a mess of alch-y chickens looking for your flask & going all puke-a-potamus all over your shoes.
Not sure how out of date the research is, but in the original Jurassic Park book, there are roaming packs of these things that overwhelm and kill people.
Though the on screen scene of them killing people happens in the second movie, it actually takes place in the first book IIRC... anyway, they're basically depicted as land piranhas.
(Again, IIRC, Jurassic Park the book basically gets set in motion with a family of tourists being eviscerated by a pack of compys... but the first movie dropped this from the story, then when the second movie comes out they basically use this scene as the intro for that, but its on a different island and used to set off an entirely new story?)
Most scavengers will gladly accept an easy meal, just like chickens will gobble up little bugs they see on the ground without giving it a second thought.
You make a good point about killing for food. I'm against killing animals for food and would rather we switch to lab grown meat. It's not fair to the animals that were created plump and killed unnaturally for the sake of eating. If it's a survival situation, that's different, you do what you can to survive. However, modern society is beyond simple survival, we have the resources and means to eliminate animal meat.
But then it begs the question "what about plants? They're alive right?" Also "what about lab meat? Even though they're not a full animal, it's still living matter."
To both those arguments, I'd say, yes, it's still not fair to those lifeforms, however it is much more humane to kill lifeforms without a brain, and that only exist to reproduce. Animals have emotions that we can understand. Fear, joy, and content. They are intelligent. Plants and lab meat are not.
If you’re willing, I feel there is a bias in your argument that I’d like to explore more with you.
You make the excellent point that plants are living organisms as well, but you also make the assumption that “it is much more humane to kill life forms without a brain.” You then go on to suggest that their sole purpose for existence is nothing more than reproduction.
I’d like to challenge both of those assertions. But before I continue, I want to make certain of my position as anecdotal, as I am not an expert in these matters.
It turns out that plants can see, smell, feel, and have a memory. And according to the scientist in the article, plants and humans also share DNA.
We’ve all heard the advice that we should talk to our plants, as they react more positively (grow) to the sound of our voices. We also know that plants play a vital role in our existence.
As for brains, no they do not have the same type of brain or nervous system that we as humans are accustomed to having. But that is not to say that plants are incapable of making decisions.
Take the Venus Flytrap as an example: it can detect when a bug has landed inside of its mouth, and after having another external stimuli triggered will it decide to trap that bug inside before it devours it for nutrients.
I could go on, such that plants do communicate with other (e.g., grass when cut, fungus creating underground networks to each other).
How much brain tho? There is significant evidance that mycelium in large forests is significant simmillar to a brain to exhibit some intelligence. What if we grow artificial neuron in a petri dish and teach it to play doom? What if we map and simulate a cubic mm of human brain is stopping that simulation akin to killing it? What about if its a full brain simulation? What if its an artificial intellgence indistinguishable from a human intellgence? Wait gpt4o is already smarter than a large amount of kids and is arguably an indistinguishable intellgence so should be give rights to ai or say its ok to kill dumb kids?
Chickens and many other birds appear to bob their heads because their eyes are fixed in their sockets, so they can't fix their eyes on a point while moving, but instead have to keep their head still. What looks like bobbing is the bird pushing its head forward and keeping it completely still for a moment while its body catches up. Without keeping its head still, it wouldn't be able to see much of anything very effectively, prey or predator.
T rex might have been able to move its eyes, in which case it probably wouldn't have bobbed its head.
People devalue animals as a whole outside of those that have been accepted by society to be sociable, likable - pets, basically - and only see them as a commodity. They don't see the animal that dies for their consumption, the suffering they endure, and don't think about just how many animals die for food. Comparing these mass murders across the globe to the Holocaust might be a little controversial, but I don't see any other way people realise the sheer absurdity of animal AG.
The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
I think its pretty healthy to always check your assumptions. Some things that are mainstream are actually pretty crazy, but taken as normal because we're used to them. For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.
Hi, I wanted to talk about X. I think it’ll take about 5-10 minutes. When would be a convenient time to call?
Phone calls themselves don’t annoy me. People who expect to call you at any time and then get upset you won’t drop what you’re doing to speak to them annoy me.
This makes me irrationally angry because whenever I hear this, putting the time it took to ask would have been enough time to just type up a few sentences in an email that would explain everything everyone needed to know and then we've also got it in an easily searchable format so we can reference it later if needed.
Showerthoughts
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).