40 continuous years can hardly be called cherry picking.

Bring back hanging chads

Religion, famous for encouraging you to critically examine your beliefs.

It’s a scandal for her, not for him. And it seems like gossip and hearsay at that.

Sorry, the smoking gun on Melenchon is that his girlfriend is rude to people sometimes? That’s some tabloid shit, and kind of a counterexample to your overall point. People should ignore politically motivated gossip.

Oh, I see.

Is that a green haired slave owner?

I’ve fallen off a bit on it, but Go. The amount of complexity that emerges from simple rules, the aesthetic forms that emerge, as if both players are collaborating on a work of art. To an experienced player, each stone has a meaning, in it’s own language, and you can almost hear them speaking. There are so many ways to approach the game, a player’s personality reveals itself on the Go board, and any flaw in one’s way of thinking, anything you need to work on, comes out on the board like looking into a mental mirror.

I’m actually heading out to a tournament now, and I’m super rusty but I think I’m starting to rediscover my interest in it.

And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

Yes, because that’s what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it’s theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn’t mean that’s actually an option that is practically available.

I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, “But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?”

Is there a hypothetical situation where it’s ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they’ll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don’t. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you’ll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.

Likewise, I’m sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it’s ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you’ve looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you’re doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.

Ukrainians and Irish are obviously too stupid to handle their own agriculture and desperately needed guidance from Moscow or London.

Pretty much every place in the world suffered from famines before modern farming techniques were introduced, and while under the rule of extractive nobles/landowners. It has nothing to do with being “too stupid” or “needing guidance.”

Famines in Ireland and India continued frequently under British rule. The famine in Ukraine was in a large part caused by political upheaval from overthrowing the power of the landowners (who responded by burning their stores), which is why it only happened once.

What about wool, honey, milk, eggs.

Again, it’s a matter of whether you’re looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.

Take eggs for example. Eggs aren’t just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can’t claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.

It’s a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.

No matter what animal product we’re talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren’t true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.

The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that’s produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.

The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like “organic,” completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.

Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.

Labels like “organic” are essentially meaningless.

But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?

To be fair Obama did try to do it but Congress screwed him.

To be fair to Congress, the 90 senators who voted against it in 2009 included Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Obama attempted to fulfill only the letter of the promise of closing Guantanamo, by simply relocating the detainees to American soil. This risked creating a firmer legal precedent that could enable the practices to be expanded across the country.

What’s crazy is that after she killed all these drafted soldiers in a morally grey war, with no hesitation, suddenly there’s this whole moral line drawn about killing someone who’s actively committing war crimes and fully intending to prolong the war and keep making chemical weapons.

The best thing the left can do is not take the bait and be diligent in steering the conversation back to the day to day economic issues that actually affect the majority of working class people.

Sure, it shouldn’t be the focus of a campaign, but this strategy of caving to the right’s BS rhetoric simply does not work.

First off, it legitimizes their positions, when even democrats start spouting transphobic nonsense, it makes it seem like there’s legitimate concerns and a debate to be had, when in reality it’s just these far-right weirdos and conspiracy theorists talking nonsense.

Second, you’re concerned about alienating people for the sake of a small segment of the population, but by caving to the right’s rhetoric, you are not only alienating trans people but also allies, which is discussed in the article. How does that number actually compare to the number of people for whom trans acceptance is a deal breaker, but who aren’t just going to vote republican regardless?

Third, this does not stop at trans people, and certainly not at trans kids. Once they have demonstrated that they can demonize (and eventually exterminate) trans people, next they will come for other gay people. Trans bathroom bans have often led to cis lesbians being harassed because they don’t “look feminine enough.” The government is now talking about screening testosterone levels in cis men in the military.

Where will be in 20 years? Will cis men with long hair be forced to cut it off? Will women only be permitted to wear skirts?

These freaks are living in the 1800s, their values and agendas are absolutely not in line with the average person. But, they are able to advance their agenda by selling it one small step at a time, and they’re able to keep taking steps because the democrats keep caving and accommodating them, allowing them to redraw the line.

Where exactly is your line? Is there one? Or will you hold on to this logic of “it’s not worth standing up for such a small minority” all the way to the gas chambers?

If it’s really impossible to prevent people from gambling on wildfires and from creating financial incentives to start them, then I would strongly prefer that it at least be relegated to the furthest fringes of society possible.

Weird to only make that distinction for Christians, as if it’s the only religion with lofty ideals. An extremist Muslim who’s fervently committed to jihad would be someone who’s really dedicated to self-control, charity, and protecting the vulnerable.