Guess you’re right. But except for this scenario where your religion tells you it’s better to kill an animal than not to kill an animal, I would still expect most if not all ethical considerations to eventually conclude that not killing something is preferable. Otherwise I fail to see how someone could not agree with this as lowest common denominator.
I find that hard to believe tbh. Maybe if someone doesn’t think about it at all. But the second you do it should be pretty obvious that killing an animal and not killing an animal are different scenarios, and very generally speaking one of those is better than the other.
The only alternative I could think of would have to be based on the assumption that an animal’s life absolutely doesn’t matter at all, and I never did (nor would want to) meet anyone who honestly believed that.
The thing is, he wasn’t even a psychologist.
Your mom broke the garage. That was absolutely irresponsible of her, not you, you were trying to help out which is really sweet.
And I mean what was the goal here anyway? Even when running late the 3 seconds it takes to start a car will hardly make any difference.
Maybe it’s different on other instances, but here on feddit a report gets “closed” as soon as someone resolves it. Doesn’t matter who did it. So if a comment on my community gets reported both I and the admin see that, and depending on who’s faster one of us can either delete the reported content or simply mark it as read. In both cases it’s no longer pending. The reports work like an inbox, so if I really wanted to I could double check resolved reports and delete them manually afterwards. Never saw the need to do that though. Im sure the other way around is possible as well.
Farming locally doesn’t mean use a city building, it means use a field thats kinda in the same region, not at the other end of the world. And of course that’s more sustainable. The shorter the transport routes are, the better.
We gave up on reusing glass bottles in large part because they were not sanitary. Every boomer has stories of finding cigarette butts in their soda and beer.
I live in a county that almost religiously reuses glass bottles and have never heard nor experienced such a story. Seems like someone figured out how to sanitize them.
No what I’m saying is maybe you are sensitive (for whatever reason - from a exceptional metabolism to placebo, over other sensitivities/allergies, complex psychological effects, etc everything is possible) but it’s certainly not because glutamate is a neurotransmitter.
Neurotransmitters and the stuff in our bloodstreams (nutrients, hormones and so on) are two very different systems. Think of it as a river and a power grid. We all have this massive stream of different molecules in our bodies, and we have an elaborate information system made from electric and chemical signaling, like cables and batteries, working right beside it. The batteries might happen to utilize the same molecules that swim around in the river, but they still have nothing to do with each other. The river doesn’t touch the batteries, and your body very carefully decides which part it takes out of the water and into the batteries. Highly simplified of course, but that’s kinda how you can imagine why one doesn’t hurt the other.
To add:
For severe problems it’s probably always wise to check with a physician, or if there’s specific stuff in your head that keeps you awake to consider telling a friend or therapist about it. To distance yourself from your thoughts is something everybody can learn and it can be tremendously helpful with stuff like that.
Even though you’re right in that glutamate is a neurotransmitter, eating it doesn’t affect our brain chemistry at all. It can’t pass the blood-brain-barrier. Which is relieving since basically every food group contains it and flooding our brain with that would lead to violent epileptic seizures and certain death. Not insomnia.
And melatonin isn’t a neurotransmitter but a hormone.
So maybe you do in fact sleep better when avoiding specific food groups in the evening, but your explanation certainly isn’t correct.
Just putting this out there since glutamate is such a highly misunderstood molecule surrounded by many misconceptions, this one being a very common one.
I didn’t even know that’s where it came from. Cool to know, thanks
Is that a proverb in english as well?
Well. My cat gets regular cat food, but I do kinda deny him “the choice of food”. (He’s prone to get diarrhea and gets a specialty food for sensitive stomachs.)
I fail to see how choosing for your cat somehow would he wrong, since literally every cat owner does it. We don’t sent them shopping and accept whatever they bring home.
I don’t think they propose feeding your cats literally vegetables, but cat food made specifically for them, containing all the proteins and micronutrients they need, sourced from plant based materials.
Did you seriously look at the FAQ of the vegan society, picked something that confirmed your preestablished opinion, and ignored the sentence right before it?
Here, let me show the whole quote:
What does it mean to be vegan?
A vegan lifestyle involves living a life that is more compassionate towards animals and the environment. The precise definition of veganism is:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
You just have a very superficial view of veganism. Just ask yourself this: Why abstain from animals products? What is the intention of a vegan lifestyle? You’ve claimed that a nuanced application would have “made a religion”, but the opposite is true. It would be a religion if we’d blindly apply a rule of conduct without any considerations. Which we don’t, as you will see all over the vegan society’s website. Just check what they write about animal products in medication. They are absolutely clear how a vegan lifestyle should work: “As far as is possible and practicable.” An important principle that practically every single vegan out there knows and lives by.
Or maybe you’re just misunderstanding what veganism is abiut in the first place.
Some people (mostly non-vegans) seem to believe it’s about blindly and thoughtlessly abstaining from animals products. That’s how veganism might look like from the outside but it’s not actually what it’s about at it’s core. That would be to avoid all unnecessary suffering. Vegans are for example aware that the farming of plants does indeed cause animal deaths. But we can’t avoid those without starving. So it’s not unnecessary. And still vegan.
Within the same logic if someone, for whatever reason, would need meat to survive he could consume it still within the same ethical framework. And theoretically that could be vegan. The thing is: For 99.9% of people it’s BS that they need meat. So obviously in the vast majority of cases it wouldn’t be vegan, just a hypocrite lying to themselves.
I read the whole thread and didn’t see a single argument about what good would have come from that. I think you’re looking at this from a very removed point of view that lets you forget the actual individuals involved. I’m German. Let me introduce you to my grandparents and let’s see how they would’ve fared under your proposed processing:
Grandpa A was drafted at the end of the war, he was 13. He didn’t want to be there and plotted a “genius” plan with his two buddies two lie to his general about a super important mission from the general next town and run off. He probably only survived that because his general wasn’t in the mood to shoot him on the spot.
Grandma B wasn’t drafted obviously, she worked in (basically) social services while WWII because she actually was a supporter of the Nazi party and felt like that’s how she could do her part. She didn’t commit any atrocities, probably simply because as a woman she never got anywhere close to the front.
Grandpa C was a party member. He didn’t want to join at first – we still own a news paper page where he (and a few others) were openly shamed for refusing to join party and front. After his brother, who had turned down an SS position, was transferred to an extra risky combat unit as cannon fodder and died on his second day, he caved. I can only assume that, as a soldier, he actively participated in the fighting. He tried to disobey where easily possible, but he didn’t desert. When his general told him to “take care” of a woman he abused, he brought her away from the front, pointed her to the nearest town and told her to flee.
Grandma D didn’t do any of that, but she was proudly engaged to a Hitler Youth leader (who thankfully died, so she met my grandpa after the war). While WWII she absolutely was a Nazi, but she didn’t actively do anything that would mark her as such. She got into a personal crisis after the war when she stopped lying to herself about this horrible system she had supported. Until the day she died she was convinced she would go to hell.
Killing every active supporter, as you suggested, would have both my grandpas executed, although they both condemned what was happening and, limited by their sparce abilities to do so, tried to disobey. My grandmas would’ve ironically been spared, even though they were (when it comes to their attitude) more Nazis than my grandpas. Neither of the four were Nazis at later points in their life, I’d like to add. And the generation after them would have never existed - an anti-nationalistic, anti-patriotic, highly political, highly critical and socially active family, influenced by traumatized men and rueful women.
So it would have achieved nothing. I’d argue the world would be even worse if that would have been humanity’s answer to WWII back then.
But what good would it have done? Those boys were victims themselves.
At the end of the war literal children were being drafted. Are you seriously arguing that we should kill a 13 year old because he got a threatening letter and followed it’s instructions?
Insane. Thanks for sharing.