As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
what do you mean "believe in"? lots of people believe in economic theories that can't tbe proven. some people believe in the goodness of mankind. everyone has some sort of myth (or likely many) that help them understand the world, regardless of how true or provable they are.
clarifying misleading information is not sealioning, nor is it a red herring. your accusations are, themselves, bad faith.
that is no longer the position of the academy
I'm not responsible for the decisions of other people.
as far as i know, chickens don't recognize property claims. they cannot possibly have a moral opposition or even a personal revulsion toward theft.
since no animal can be informed, consent never plays a role. it's absurd.
in an argument regarding veganism, someone has purported that non-vegans are acting immorally because the animals do not consent to their exploitation. the second person has stated that the definition vis-a-vis the vegan society makes no mention of consent and further argues it is absurd to cosider consent from something incapable of granting it (consent being informed, and non-human animals lacking the capability to be informed). the second person makes a comparison to the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits, saying tehy oppose that exploitation, as well, and the opposition has nothing to do with consent.
the first person has asserted this is a form of "what about ism" while the second rebutted that it is just an argument from analogy. can you clear up this conflict about the form of the argument?
You're right, there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about the type of argument being used. Let's break it down:
First Person's Argument: This is an argument from rights. They argue that animals have a right to not be exploited, similar to how humans have rights. The concept of consent is used to highlight that animals cannot give permission for their exploitation. Second Person's Argument: This is a combination of two things: Definition: They point out that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society doesn't explicitly mention consent. This is true, the focus is on minimizing animal exploitation. Analogy: They compare animal exploitation to fossil fuel exploitation. Both are seen as harmful, but the second person argues consent isn't relevant in the case of fossil fuels.
Who's right?
The second person is correct that the Vegan Society definition doesn't mention consent. However, the second person's analogy isn't perfect. Fossil fuels are inanimate objects, while animals are sentient beings. Consent might not be directly applicable, but the argument about minimizing harm to sentient creatures still stands.
What's the better approach?
The first person could expand their argument beyond consent. They could talk about the negative impacts of animal agriculture on animal welfare, the environment, and human health. The second person could acknowledge the sentience of animals and the ethical concerns around their treatment, even without using the term consent.
Here's how the conversation could progress:
First Person: "You're right, consent might not be the best term. But factory farms cause immense suffering to animals. We have a moral obligation to minimize that."
Second Person: "I agree that factory farms are problematic. Perhaps we can discuss ways to improve animal welfare practices within the current system, while also exploring alternatives like plant-based proteins."
This shift would move the conversation from a debate about semantics to a more productive discussion about solutions.
they're not arguing about whether veganism is right: they're arguing about which motivations are reasonable.
You're right, that changes the context of the argument. Here's how the argument form breakdown changes:
First Person's Argument: This is still an appeal to rights, but focused on motivation. They argue that animal lack of consent is a strong ethical reason for veganism. Second Person's Argument: This is an argument based on the definition of veganism and the limitations of using consent as a universal motivator. They argue the ethical stance of veganism can exist without relying on consent.
Who's right?
Both have valid points. The first person highlights a core ethical concern for many vegans. The second person is correct that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society prioritizes minimizing exploitation, not consent specifically.
Better approach for the argument about motivations:
First Person: Acknowledge the broader definition. "Yes, veganism is about minimizing exploitation, and for me, animal sentience and their inability to consent to their treatment are key reasons why I believe exploiting them is wrong." Second Person: Acknowledge the ethical weight of the first person's concern. "I understand how animal sentience and lack of consent can be strong motivators for veganism. Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks within veganism that resonate with you as well?"
This approach allows them to:
Agree on the core goal of minimizing exploitation. Discuss the various ethical motivations that can lead someone to veganism.
This can lead to a more nuanced discussion about the different reasons people choose a vegan lifestyle.
would you call the second person's argument whataboutism?
No, in this context, the second person's argument wouldn't be considered a true whataboutism. Here's why:
Whataboutism: A whataboutism is a fallacy where you deflect criticism by bringing up an irrelevant issue. The goal is to distract from the original point.
Second Person's Argument: Here, the second person isn't trying to distract. They are directly addressing the first person's point about consent being the key motivator for veganism.
They use the definition of veganism to show consent isn't the only factor.
The fossil fuel analogy highlights that other ethical concerns (environmental harm) can motivate a similar stance (opposing exploitation).
It's more like an analogy with limitations. The second person is trying to show that the concept of consent isn't universally applicable within the ethical framework of veganism. However, the analogy isn't perfect because animals are sentient beings, unlike fossil fuels.
So, what could it be called?
There isn't a single term that perfectly captures the second person's argument. It's a combination of:
Redefining the Scope: They argue the definition of veganism is broader than just consent.
Analogy with Limitations: They use the fossil fuel example to show other ethical concerns exist.
By acknowledging these points, the first person can still argue that consent, or the lack thereof, is a powerful motivator for them personally within the broader ethical framework of veganism.
Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd,
i think it's fine to oppose exploitation. it's absurd to premise that opposition on consent.
They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children?
she would need to believe that. i have no evidence that chickens believe their eggs to be their children.
what aboutism is a form of tu quoque. I'm not making any kind of accusation, I'm making an argument from analogy.
it's fine to value consent. but it's absurd to talk about consent from something incapable of it.
calling me names doesn't change whether what I said is true. what I said is true. your article at no point gives ownership of the votes to anybody but the voters.
Your action led to a dead cow in the future.
Does that work?
no, that's not causal. but even if it were, it doesn't make me responsible for the killing of the plants or animals in the past.
the company has to produce now to replace the one you bought.
no, they don't. they could choose not to do that. I am not responsible for their choices.
chickens can't consent to anything at all. it's absurd. I oppose exploiting fossil fuel deposits, but that has nothing to do with consent either.
You shouldn’t need your hand held for this, it’s pretty basic stuff.
this is just posturing. it doesn't support your (erroneous) claim, nor does it undermine my (obviously correct) position.
supply and demand.
that's a theory about price discovery that actually has no predictive value. it is not a magic phrase that traverses space-time
Jill can't siphon votes from Joe, because the votes dont belong to Joe: they belong to voters, and it is up to politicians to earn votes.
On April 15th, people from over 30 cities around the world will launch a global economic blockade answering the call from Gaza to fight for a liberated Palestine. 75 years and 182 days into this U...
On April 15th, people from over 30 cities around the world will launch a global economic blockade answering the call from Gaza to fight for a liberated Palestine. 75 years and 182 days into this U...
On April 15th, people from over 30 cities around the world will launch a global economic blockade answering the call from Gaza to fight for a liberated Palestine. 75 years and 182 days into this U...
On April 15th, people from over 30 cities around the world will launch a global economic blockade answering the call from Gaza to fight for a liberated Palestine. 75 years and 182 days into this U...
On April 15th, people from over 30 cities around the world will launch a global economic blockade answering the call from Gaza to fight for a liberated Palestine. 75 years and 182 days into this U...
I'm aware that this community is not usually happy with the content that's available above-board for-free under-restriction. For instance, free with subscription, or free with ads.
But I have found myself obsessed with library cards recently.
Libraries grant access to pretty expansive collections even online: movies, tv, music, and ebooks are just the beginning. Genealogical resources, vehicle repair manuals, business contact databases, academic journals, and periodicals. One of my libraries granted me access to Udemy Business through Gale. I honestly can't detail every database/collection/resource i've found available through the 4 libraries who have granted me useful access.
But I seem to have hit a wall. The New York Public Library says "visitors" may get a "temporary" card, but the number they gave me expired after 2 weeks and didnt get me access to any of their online offerings anyway.
Paris says they'll happily issue me a card. All I need to do is fill out the form (in french?!) and show up in person with photo ID. /s
Surely, I'm not the only one who has decided to try to collect library cards like pokemon cards. I imagine there are philanthropic libraries or national libraries or something that I just don't know how to look up. I'm looking for any library that will issue me a card regardless of residency, but for reference I am in the US if that's the only residency requirement. Anyone got tips?
For months now Israel has waged a brutal bombing campaign against Gaza. With state of the art technology, the IDF uses algorithms to generate a seemingly unending list of potential targets with a ...
A look at Israel’s AI generated war on Gaza and the Western Governments and Tech Corporations who are invested in it. #gaza #freepalestine #ai #artificialintelligence #ai #machinelearning #technology #datascience #google #amazon #israel #elbitsystems #rafah #drones #dronestrike
A look at Israel’s AI generated war on Gaza and the Western Governments and Tech Corporations who are invested in it. #gaza #freepalestine #ai #artificialintelligence #ai #machinelearning #technology #datascience #google #amazon #israel #elbitsystems #rafah #drones #dronestrike https://kolektiva....
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/14443367
> #gaza #freepalestine #ai #artificialintelligence #ai #machinelearning #technology #datascience #google #amazon #israel > #elbitsystems #rafah #drones #dronestrike > > https://kolektiva.media/w/hLBzLUtGSRHeHFPZfi5jGU >
Download Rott 13 for Firefox. Easily rot13 any selected text. Woof woof!
purpx vg bhg!
Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use - Association of Research Libraries https://www.arl.org/blog/training-generative-ai-models-on-copyrighted-works-is-fair-use/
I fucked with the title a bit. What i linked to was actually a mastodon post linking to an actual thing. but in my defense, i found it because cory doctorow boosted it, so, in a way, i am providing the original source here.
please argue. please do not remove.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
i don't know how i got linked to this channel but i kept clicking on videos because i like him and his style and his politics.
and i just gotta say
i saw some highly dunkable libs saying things like "don't link me to people who make an argument. you need to use your own words or i'm going to block you." and now i want, desparately, to link them to this video in particular.
the end bit is the best where he says (im paraphrasing) "if someone says that we can't show solidarity with palestine because then our team won't win, then you can say 'fuck your team' and just be in solidarity with oppressed people because the people saying that are dum-dum doo-doo heads" and i really felt that.
https://jerseycounterinfo.noblogs.org/avenge-tortuguita-avenge-the-forest/
I use youtube across different devices with the same account. sometimes, i even use it in multiple browser profiles or apps on the same device (with the account logged in).
the ad reminder got me. it actually stopped serving any youtube video on my laptop. so i made a new profile in firefox, logged in, and it was fine. for a couple days.
so i made a new profile, logged in, and... was foiled. but not to be deterred, i did what any reasonable person would do: i sought out one of the DOZENS of alternative frontends and used youtube's recommendation algorithm on the main site to pull videos from the alternative frontend.
for one day.
today, on my laptop, with my old profile, never changing logins or browser settings, youtube started working again.
did we win?
my dad is blind.
he used to use yahoo! chat and he REALLY enjoyed the voice chat feature. i think it's because it reminded him of party lines from his younger days. anyway he did honestly develop relationships with some of the people on that platform and when yahoo! shut down their chat platform, a diaspora happened. he followed some of them to paltalk.
i doubt most blind people have ever even tried paltalk: 10 years ago they started pushing an interface that seems actively hostile to screenreaders and keyboard navigation. more recently (the last year or maybe two), they totally disabled their "classic" interface and i got to learn just how hostile the new interface is to accessibility software. its actually impossible for him to use his microphone or read the text that appears in the text chat. this puts him in the awkward position of being able to listen to others and type out responses or quips (slowly, but he's getting quicker)
i am quite adept at keyboard based navigation as a result of his disability. i feel that i am supremely capable of learning and teaching software for the blind.
UNFORTUNATELY he is also a diagnosed antisocial narcissist, and absolutely resistant to change. i feel confident that i could learn discord well enough to give him some training sessions and the whole discord ecosystem would open up for him. but he insists his friends are on paltalk.
can anyone recommend software for him, or give me compelling arguments in favor of discord? i will say he primarily likes to chat with boomers about politics, if that's any help picking a suggestion.
ADDENDUM
this is just a little vent from me: he insists these people are his friends and i tell him if that's the case, they will give him their email address or phone number or just follow him somewhere that is accessible (i know they won't though and i think he's afraid to find out that's true). to compound this particular difficulty, one of the paltalk chatrooms he hangs out in has a rule (but it's more of an ethos) that you can't talk about other chat rooms or platforms, as though drawing people away from their channel is a threat to them. it feels like a fucking cult.
fin
don't dogpile them. i just wanted to vent.