This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Zacryon,

Und heute in Ereignissen, die nichts nennenswertes in der Welt verändern werden…

https://feddit.de/pictrs/image/a90602e5-0ac8-4eb7-842d-dfe42f7a54ab.jpeg

Zacryon,

Boomer Humor.

Aber mir erstmal vurst, die machen dax ja nicht bei den anderen Produkten auch so, oder? Ist lecker und vegan.

Zacryon,

One of the reasons why I love the number 3. There are other neat digit sum tricks, see for example for the numbers 1 to 30 here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisibility_rule

Zacryon,

Given our current understanding of the human brain, I would’ve argued that this answer was rather obvious.

Even though the human brain is excellent at abstracting thoughts and performing logical reasoning, it needs time to adjust to a new sensory input, which it wasn’t exposed to before. This is what learning is.

It would be good to know how those people approached those shapes. Did they just look at those to “intuitively” decide or did they also think, i.e., reason, about it?

Zacryon,

Hier noch ein paar:

Ihm tut die Blase jetzt nicht mehr weh,
doch es hebte sich die Ostsee.

Die Ostsee stieg und stieg, stieg noch mehr
Doch dafür ist endlich meine Blase leer.

Zwar sind die Strände jetzt überschwemmt,
aber mein Schniedel ist endlich nicht mehr eingeklemmt.

Danke für die Inspiration.

Zacryon,

Bing image creator?

Zacryon,

Alright. Ist im Grunde das selbe.

Zacryon,

They’ll probably be ignored for abusing the report system.

Zacryon,

Aufräumen und Vorbereiten, da ist man dann schnell wieder über den 15 Minuten.

Zacryon,

Echtes Brot :D

Zacryon,

Es sei denn man ist eh schon ein notorischer Langduscher.

Zacryon, (edited )

Guter Punkt. Auf Kinder zu verzichten spart auch Zeit, Geld und Nerven.

Zacryon,

Und TooGoodToGo.

Macht "Macht Sinn" in der Umgangssprache Sinn - aber ergibt keinen Sinn beim Gebrauch in akademischer Sprache oder vergleichbarem? German

Hatte heute eine (zugegebenermaßen zu hitzige) Diskussion über “macht Sinn” und “ergibt Sinn”. Oder genauer: keine Diskussion, sondern ein an den Kopf werfen von “es wird ständig benutzt so” vs. “es ist ein Anglizismus”. Da mich aber auch ehrlich interessiert, was eigentlich dahinter steckt (und die Diskussion...

Zacryon,

Anglizismus weil: “it makes sense”, wörtlich übersetzt “es macht Sinn”.

Zacryon,

Auch wenn der Beweis durch Induktion hier eine lustige Anspielung auf Mathematik ist, so bezieht sich die Induktion hier ja auf elektromagnetische Induktion, was ein mindestens genauso nerdiges Thema ist (für das man aber auch Mathe braucht). ^^

Zacryon,

Heute lernte ich, Biologie ist verblüffend.

Zacryon,

Oh ich hasse dieses Argument. Ja genau, Henriette, weil du 48 bist, hast du sicherlich voll den Durchblick. Herzlichen Glückwunsch, dass deine Eltern geschafft haben ein paar Jahre früher zu pimpern als meine. Das macht dich zu einer Universalgelehrten. 🙄

Respekt bekommt, wer Respekt verdient. Und Alter alleine ist sicher kein Qualitätsmerkmal dafür.

Zacryon,

Wer 48 ist, hat tendenziell mehr Ahnung vom Leben

Genau das halte ich für nicht richtig. Wer welche Erfahrungen im Leben gemacht hat, lässt sich nicht allein am Alter festmachen.

Den Rest kann ich so aber stehen lassen.

Zacryon,

Note to self: It’s 2023. Men still have a big fear of being labeled gay.

Zacryon,

Anders gesagt dir ist das Wohlergehen von Tieren egal, richtig?

Würdest du auch einen Hund aus Vergnügen treten?

Zacryon,

Spotted the nihilist.

From experience, I find it hard to argue with nihilists since nothing really has value for them. Although, I have yet to meet a pure nihilist (or amoralist). Fully functioning nihilsts and amoralists don’t exist. So usually it shows that they are not as nihilistic as it first seems. And I suspect you will be no exception.

Technically, and from a natural point of view, you are correct. Suffering is an evolutionary trait. But it has no bigger universal meaning or consequences other than being a stimulus which aids organisms in survival.

You argue (or rather try to show a weakness of an argument) that if all of humanity were commiting suicide, this would be beneficial for other forms of life on this planet. (Or “most” humans, to be technically adequate, since I can imagine that humans are also to some degree important parts of functioning ecosystems.) This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It’s obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here. Vegans (and a lot of non-vegans with a similar mindset in this regard) would like to survive themselves while keeping the harm they inflict to other (somewhat sentient) forms of life as minimal as possible.

What intrigues me is that you are not advocating for sucide. You even emphasize that. Why is that? This implies that you must have some sort of moral concept, which is not rooted in Nihilism. Tell me about it!

I feel that’s […] driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing […], not about giving an actual logical argument.

That’s the thing about moral and logic: it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given. This will be the very first premise. Based on that you can reason away and build a logically consistent moral concept.

You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises “I want to be alive” and “suffering is bad”.

As this is the very core, we can now discuss whether these premises are something we want to use as our ethical foundation. Of course you can reject it and try to live as an, e.g., amoralist. But even then you would make your decisions based on your individual belief system. And that one will probably have more logic holes than my socks. So saying that Veganism aims at emotional blackmailing is rather the very same cause for the existence of most moral beliefs. This mechanism works for all moral decisions, regardless of the specific philosophical movement. As I said before, you can’t purely “logic” goals and thereby moral into existence.

Once you have this realisation, you’ll usually find that going vegan is the only logically valid step.

Zacryon,

As I read your comment, you approach veganism from a nihilistic perspective, invalidating their belief system since it is driven by emotion. At the same time you seem to have missed that every ethical concept stems from similar emotional processes. I wanted to point out the contradiction you created by that, since there is and was no living “full” nihilist or amoralist (except folks like existential nihilists) who whishes to continue their existence.
In other words: There is no moral without emotion. So critisizing veganism that way you did before, is illogical.

And I do believe that all creatures with instinct are also moral beings… it’s not that wolves are behaving immorally when they hunt sheep, they are behaving in the most morally correct manner that emerges from their natural selection. Their appetite is more important for the wolf than the sheep’s suffering.

Didn’t you know that - based on our current understanding - virtually all animals besides humans lack the cognitive capacity of moral agency?
In your example, wolves are not able to contemplate their actions the way we do. They don’t have the necessary self-awareness, nor the required brain structure to even have labels such as “good” or “bad” to evaluate and prospect their (possible) actions. Their behaviour is mostly driven by instinct and training or experience. They do not “think” about whether it’s good or bad to kill and eat the sheep, they also don’t “think” that “they” are more important than the sheep. They simply do. They are not able to perform moral reasoning. There is no moral at play here. Moral does not exist for wolves. Only beings which posess moral agency are able to do that.

We - as humans - can evaluate the actions of wolves as morally correct or incorrect, since we are beings with moral agency. But the wolves can’t. They don’t look at other wolves killing sheep and think “oh dude, maybe the sheep wasn’t so happy about that, but it’s okay, since we need to eat”.

So even though your observation is in so far correct as that wolves still have a decision making process, which allows them to hunt their prey if they are hungry, this decision making process is of purely instinctual and not morally aware nature.

Don’t you find it curious that most people only seem to care about an animal when it’s relatively close in mechanism / behavior to a human? …most people don’t have second thoughts when it comes to killing a cockroach, for example. Is the desire to not have insects in the house more important than the insect’s suffering?

I don’t find it curious, no. As you already said this is rooted in similarities of capacity to suffer within us humans and other animals. According to my currenty state of knowledge, a lot of research shows that insects do not feel pain. Although a definitive answer is still out in the open. If I remember it correctly, there are hints that honey bees for example can experience some sort of distress when being smoked, which is why some vegans also do not consume honey. Vegans attribute suffering as something which can (currently) only be experienced by beings with a central nervous system. And that is also nuanced in several degrees. (An example, some vegans eat oysters since those lack a central nervous system.) This is an active interpretation of the term “suffering”, and that makes sense. Why should you want to prevent damage to a being, if it is not able to feel suffering? A passive interpretation of suffering would be the presence of any stimulus which drives an organism to actions which prevent the occurence of such a stimulus. Those stimuli have evolved into incents for increasing the survival chance of an organism and its species. For example, this would also mean that plants are suffering when they don’t maximize their beneficial sunlight exposure, which is why they grow towards light. This is of course one of the factors which drives evolution. However, as you will hopefully agree, there are different levels of suffering. While reactive behaviour of, e.g., oysters or plants are simple and mere reflexes to the environment, more complex organisms like vertebrates are capable of more complex forms of suffering, like pain, fear, stress, etc… Simply put, that’s also where vegans draw the line.

then it should be ok to eat meat (or use products from animal origin) as long as we could be absolutelly sure the animals involved did not “suffer” (you could even kill them yourself, right?)

Since you can not make sure that the involved animals do not suffer, this is not okay for vegans. Most vegans also don’t understand “suffering” as an active negative stimulus but also as the lack of positive ones. (Which also holds for what I said in the previous paragraph.) An early end of life, the lack of “true” freedom, i.e., living in the wild as in times before humans domesticated them, the fact that most of the animals, which humans consume, are bred for optimized meat, milk or whatever yield, which decreases their natural lifespan are such lacking positives and also brings along a bunch of negatives like (hurtful) health issues. Those are all the manifestations of suffering that vegans aim to prevent.

I already disambiguated the term “suffering” as a stimulus before and where and why vegans draw a line. So I hope that this will be a sufficient response to your paragraphs which follow the quote from the last one I quoted here.

This is true, but only as the very first initial premise. You NEED logic to isolate what those premises should be (and to be able to extrapolate from those premises)

Yes, of course. Still, these premises all start with emotions. But it seems we agree on that.

if you actually want to maximize the success rate of the primal evolutionary drive that pushes our human morals.

I am not sure I completely understand you here. What do you mean by that? Which evolutionary drive’s sucess rate should we want to maximize? And how is this related to the first part of the sentence?

I’d argue most crimes and acts considered immoral have their root in emotion too. Because using emotion as a basis alone, without logic, would lead to inconsistent results, the morals would be changing based on the circumstances in a way that is not logical.

Agreed. To dive deeper: there is no inherent need for consistent results. It’s just that most people like to respect themselves and justify their actions. They don’t want to see themselves in a bad way and therefore naturally strive for morally correct behaviour. If you then explore their moral belief system you often find that it has sometimes more, sometimes less inconsistencies which cause distress for them. They might re-evaluate their stance and correct their belief system, possibly condoning their past behaviour and views. Or they shut down, blocking arguments which might invalidate their position even though logically correct, aka “confirmation bias”.

But I see now how you originally meant your “emotional blackmailing” part. You were mainly criticizing the meme and not veganism as a whole by saying that, correct?

I would still justify such a meme format, since such emotions can be the nudge required to re-evaluate ones values and beliefs. This is why populism works, but also why it is so dangerous. The problem, and I agree with you in that regard, might then become that people don’t spend sufficient cognitive effort for thinking about this criticially enough, such that they could arrive at logically consistent conclusions. In this meme specifically I still see the incentive for that (“should ones own pleasure be evaluated with higher priority than the suffering of animals?”), it’s therefore less emotionally appealing than more radical examples, which leverage as much emotion as possible and almost completely omit the rational part.

Furthermore I feel the need to put this into perspective: This meme was posted to the german vegan community (VeganDE), the title of the post translates to: “Why did you become a vegan?”. It does not seem as if it would aim to appeal to the viewers of this post to change their lifestyle towards veganism, but I see it rather as a conversation starter within a vegan community. Also, from my experience, most vegans I met so far, have thouroughly thought about their choice to go vegan and did not made this choice irrationally based on emotion alone.

Zacryon,

Ich sehe nicht, was an den Fragen problematisch ist. Ich habe mit meiner ersten Frage sicherstellen wollen, dass ich dich nicht falsch verstehe. Das hast du noch nicht beantwortet.

Meine zweite Frage hilft dabei zu ergründen, wie deine Moralvorstellungen aussehen. Hier kommt noch eine:

Warum findest du es moralisch gut (oder zumindest nicht schlecht) Tiere zu schlachten und zu essen?

Zacryon, (edited )

*on deterministic computers.

Technically, even then doing the same can lead to different results, if nondeterministic events play a role and the different aspects of the software or system may contain bugs. For example mutlithreaded applications where the scheduler can passively influence the outcome of an operation. In one run it fails, in another it doesn’t. A nightmare to debug.

Zacryon, (edited )

Manche Gesetze und Rechtssprechungen sind nicht 100% einwandfrei oder moralisch gut. Hier und da ein paar rechtliche Tricks auszunutzen, um Nazis zu nerven, ist sicherlich nicht moralisch verwerflich.

Dass soetwas nicht auf alles und jeden ausgeweitet werden sollte, ist aber auch klar.

Wo ziehe ich die Grenze? Bei menschenverachtenden Ideologien wie bei Nazis zum Bleistift.

Zacryon,

Das war schon bewusst gewählt. Ich mag es “zum Bleistift” statt “zum Beispiel” zu sagen. Lass mir meine Bleistifte. ó_ò

Zacryon,

Ich fühle mich von dieser aggressiven Protestform gestört. Diese Wirtschaftsterroristen gehören weggesperrt statt Bürger zu nötigen, die gar nichts dafür können!!1! /s

Zacryon,

Oh mann, da musste ich laut lachen. Danke. xD

Zacryon,

Es gibt Unternehmen, die ihre Geschäftsführung bereits durch eine KI ersetzt haben. Siehe z.B.: independent.co.uk/…/ai-ceo-artificial-intelligenc…

Ich weiß nicht, ob da inzwischen weitere Unternehmen nachgezogen sind.

Zacryon,

Stiftung Warentest is such a thing in Germany.

Zacryon, (edited )

Die Humanisten klangen einst nach einer guten Idee für mich. Wissenschaftsbasierte Politik? Geile Sache!

Aber dann kamen so einige Dinge zusammen, darunter z.B.:

  • Mangelndes Vorgehen gegen Sexismus.
  • Das Thema Gendern halten sie “für eine Verschwendung politischer Ressourcen”.
  • Laut Berichten einiger Parteimitglieder gibt es eine starke Arroganz bei Leuten mit MINT-Hintergrund, welche gleichzeitig wohl einen großen Teil der Partei darstellen. Andere Zweige der Wissenschaft werden belächelt und kaum ernst genommen.
  • Diskussionen verlaufen unsachlich und mit starkem Bias.
  • Diverse Positionen sind gar nicht so kritisch und differenziert ausgearbeitet wie es wissenschaftlich angemessen wäre.
  • Sinnfreie Wahlplakate wie “Wer vögeln will, muss freundlich sein!”.

Na wenn das mal nicht nach einer wissenschaftlich vorbildlich ausgearbeiteten Partei klingt. /s

Wenn Kleinpartei, wird’s dann doch die Tietschutzpartei bei mir, welche überraschend gut ausgearbeitete Punkte zur letzten Bundestagswahl hatte. (Aus strategischen Gründen hatte ich mich dann leider für eine der größeren Parteien entschieden.)

Zacryon,

Nö. Es geht darum die politische Meinung zu beeinflussen. Daran ist nichts demokratiefeindlich. Das ist das Tagesgeschäft von Politik.

Zacryon,

Jo, ich verstehe es eher wie ersteres. Menschen mit demokratischen Mitteln dazu bewegen ihre Stimme für andere Parteien abzugeben.

Zacryon,

Reicht nicht. Nachdenken können müssen sie auch.

Zacryon, (edited )

Je älter, desto CDU/CSU.

Zacryon,

Ich möchte hinzufügen, dass die Ampel laut Halbzeitstatistik mehr ihrer Koalitionsvereinbarungen umgesetzt hat als die Vorgängerregierung.

bertelsmann-stiftung.de/…/halbzeitbilanz-der-ampe…

Die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit ist halt echt miserabel. Man hängt sich an den Streits auf und bläht diese unnötig groß auf, was das Bild stark verzerrt und den Konkurrenten in die Hände spielt. Vielleicht sollten sie es machen wie die CDU vor ihnen und überteuerte externe PR-Berater engagieren.

Zacryon,

Auf die schnelle gefunden:

Petitionsplattformen sind nicht schüchtern darin ihre Erfolge (oder ihr Mitwirken an solchen) öffentlich zu präsentieren.

Zacryon,

Und jetzt 240 tsd + 1. Danke für den Link! :)

Zacryon,

Ich selbst kenne es nur aus dem Englischen, wo es aber gleichbedeutend mit Gemüse ist. “I like to eat my veggies.”

Zacryon,

Günstig sind die da aber oftmals nicht. Die bekommen einen Exklusivitätsaufpreis, weil es asiatische exotische Lebensmittel in einem deutschen Kartoffelmarkt sind. Besser zu einem Asiamarkt gehen.

Zacryon,

Warum gezwungen?

Zacryon,

Okay, anders gefragt, warum fühlst du dich von Faschisten überhaupt vertreten?

Zacryon,

Das alleine sind also deine Kriterien dich der NPD zuzuwenden? Warum nicht eine der anderen Parteien?

Zacryon, (edited )

Okay, da ist wohl auf meiner Seite untergegangen, dass du in einer Antwort “hypothetisch gezwungen” geschrieben hast (oder hast du es nacheditiert?). In deinem Ausgangskommentar steht das jedenfalls nicht, daher die Fragerei. Danke für die Klarstellung.

Zacryon,

Guter Punkt. Das sind dann natürlich gute Fragen, die irgendwie geklärt werden müssen. Und selbstverständlich braucht es dafür dann auch ein vernünftiges gesetzliches Rahmenwerk. Ich behaupte aber mal, dass das im Rahmen des Machbaren ist, wenn der (politische) Will dazu vorhanden ist.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines