"you really don’t think that de Dutch NOC would send someone to Paris who IS a real risk? No, he isn’t a risk.”
Given how often powerful groups cover up and protect pedos in their ranks, yeah I do think they would send someone who’s a risk. It’s not surprising, just disappointing
Did you read the study I linked? Do you have a source for your claims? “Just asking questions” is very different to asking for a source, especially when I’ve looked into it and found a study counter to your claim. For the record, I also ask for sources from people who I think are correct or mostly correct: https://slrpnk.net/comment/10039992
Edit: more info on zoos https://faunalytics.org/does-zoo-accreditation-really-mean-happier-animals/
I wasn’t demanding they educate me, I was curious if they had a source to back up their claim.
The ones being negative are the zoos keeping animals captive for entertainment. The good of conservation and rehabilitation work doesn’t justify that
Edit: I educated myself, turns out my hunch was right and the point I was trying to make stands. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7380022/ “The 40 species of animals bred for release by zoos represented only 14% of all animal species for which conservation translocations were published and only 25% of all animal species that were bred for releases occurring in North America”
We don’t even need zoos to do the conservation work.
Here’s a more general overview https://sentientmedia.org/pros-and-cons-of-zoos/
You’re welcome for the education 😊
Do you happen to have any stats on the percentage of animals in zoos where the goal is to release them into the wild, and maybe the percentage of ones too injured to ever be able to release?
Now do the rest of the animals!
Or other externalities
If people who hunt with population control as the excuse were logically consistent then they’d say yes
I was trying to “yes, and” that comment 🤷
yeah those get thrown around in my friend group sometimes too. I think “i fucked your parent” jokes are usually made by straight dudes (which there’s a lot to unpack there) though, so it’s more common for them to go for the gender they’re attracted to. Not always tho
I think the person I responded to isn’t wrong, just that it’s not the whole picture. I was/am trying to “yes, and” their comment
I think there’s also a power aspect. Your mom is your parent, someone with some power or status over you, so if someone sleeps with her they’re now on the level of your parents, it implies that you’re no longer equal peers but a step-parent/child relationship
Get a label maker and add a label saying “aquired by killing a nazi” (there’s probably something cooler/nicer than a label, like engraving it, and there’s probably a better way to word it too)
The reason ethical vegans don’t like reductionism is because it’s still fundamentally speciesist. It’s like if someone goes to see a dog fight every week, people get mad at them for supporting animal abuse, so they only go once a month instead. Is it technically better? Yes. Is it still fucked up? Also yes.
Eh, it’s hard for me to respect someones beliefs when they use those beliefs to justify causing harm. And if someone believes that experiencing a good taste in their mouth justifies killing, I don’t respect that at all
Re: vegan cats, they actually can do well on a properly planned/supplemented vegan diet, although more research is needed. If you’re against nutritionally complete vegan kibble, you should be against all kibble
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/ The Impact of Vegan Diets on Indicators of Health in Dogs and Cats: A Systematic Review (2023)
“However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used.”
Eh, sometimes it makes sense to just call things as they are instead of trying to tiptoe around peoples feelings.
If you don’t think artificial insemination is a form of rape/sexual violation, then idk what kind of meaningful discussion we can have. If you don’t think unnecessary killing is murder, then again idk what kind of meaningful discussion we can have. (Note that there’s not really any good reason for the term “murder” to only apply to humans. If someone kills your dog would you be opposed to the use of the word “murder” then?)
Same reason people who love fossil fuels hate people who are worried about global warming
Well if you support the rape and murder of animals (both common in animal agriculture) don’t be surprised when people get upset
Because people are selfish, stuck in their ways, and speciesist. Some are also ignorant
Any recs on good NA whiskey?