Basman

Your arguments is that they hate themselves. That is frankly ridiculous 😂. You don't have to hate yourself to care about animals. Vegans just tend to be a bit out of touch with reality at times.

Meat-eaters VS vegans is structurally the same as Atheists VS Christians.

I don't like how you assume my intentions. I haven't actually said anything about the merits of veganism or meat-eating. I just have a different understanding of what survival is. If anything, it's dishonest to assume intent over focusing on the quality of arguments. That is a prime example of survival actually. I guarantee that the average serial rapists has all sorts of rationalizations about how women deserve it, etc. Ethics and survival are two different and often opposing things. Ethics are limitations to one's selfishness. But ethics are also survival to a certain extent, as they are culturally informed and socially regulated. For example, sex slavery is abhorrent in western countries but completely normal and expected in Mauritania. People would look at you weird if you didn't keep slaves, like how big businesses are expected to screw over customers and steal wages and would get sued by their investors if they didn't. Ethics seem to have certain universality for humans at least, but I'm not completely sure and if to what extent. Also, "validity is an inherently lingual notion. Tigers don't give a shit about "validity". In the context of survival "validity" is just an opinion.

But you do. Food is the one consistent highlight in a lot of people's day. The fact that people will fight and debate you over giving up their burgers is proof of that. It's an explanation, not a justification. Trying to convert a meat-eater into veganism is structurally the same as trying to convert a secular person into Christianity. It'll only work if they are already open to the idea. Morality is not a universal feature but a relative mental construct. Human morality, including veganism, is largely an extension of behavior that would maintain social cohesion, like not being murderous. Tigers don't flinch or question when they kill because they don't have an identity that subsumes certain principles as right or wrong nor do they have the need to. That is not bug but a feature of their design.

Actually has a nice cadence to it and I like how the chorus sounds and how the song progresses, but the lyrics are unacceptable cringe. Kind of edgy shit that would be cool in the early 2010s.

Why did I get a blank flag?

Survival is the survival of one's own identity, which is why vegans tend to get in so many debates. They are surviving their vegan identity, likewise people can feel like their worldview and lifestyle is being undermined by vegan ideology because it is uncompromising due to its moral dimension. Comparatively, you don't see people debating paleo bros. There is no "paleo identity". It lacks that moral dimension that makes it more actual, beyond just being nutrition bros.

Eating for flavor and texture is survival. Eating bland food purely for nutrition or being vegan is less naturalistic than just eating tasty burgers unquestioningly. It is just in modern times that following one's instincts can be unhealthy. Medieval peasants would be healthier if they ate Big macs.

Great documentary showing what life is like in a lawless country. Spoiler alert, utter shit. Puts my cushy life into perspective. If you live in a first world country you don't have problems, you have challenges (unless you have a serious mental illness or disability or something). It's like Cyberpunk, but just the crime.

Currently it would be closer to anarchy because there is no central power that monopolizes violence and adjudicates law, although non-ideologically. People are just surviving in a state without a functioning government. Haitian collapse can be tied to a certain degree to corruption and bad economic policy. I don't think that counts as libertarianism necessarily.

Good explanation of why Haiti is in the mess it is in.

They have a literal combat zone where the police will shoot anyone on sight, where they regularly get into gunfights with gang members.

Bullet-point style format and those emojis are a dead giveaway.

I'd argue that economic issues is the most bipartisan and unifying issue for Americans but leaning more into religion could certainly be a good thing. Also, your post kind of looks like it is AI generated. Maybe I'm wrong but you should make that disclaimer if that is the case.

You don't have to justify your choices to anyone. Yes, veganism means you are imposing significant limitations on your lifestyle. People who chose to be vegan simply value differently.

Girls like the feeling of being desirable.

https://www.youtube.com/@ElephantsInRooms I discovered this channel the other day and I've already watched nearly every video uploaded so far. Granted, they are not very long individually but the brevity of topics and the willingness to discuss topics that aren't often taboo or politically sensitive is like scratching an itch you can't reach yourself. Here are some of my favorites so far: This one gives more context to the Palestine situation: This one is a pretty good example of how "wokeness" can not only be ineffective but hurt and kill people and destroy trust in institutions: This one's an eye opener. Accordingly, landfills are actually more environmentally friendly than recycling (when done properly). Recycling is in large part bit of a sham:

I'd add a lack of education to the mix as well. Americans are hardly taught how to think (as opposed to what to think) and aren't cognizant of how to control for bias.

Hitting the nail on the head. Americans are so annoying for this. It always has to be this irrational ideological battle.

Case 1 is a classic. It's the AK47 of abortion debates. In relation to case 2, in countries where abortions are accessible, fetuses with down syndrome and the like are almost always eliminated. There is not much difference inherently between aborting a gay-babe and downey besides material consequences for the parents life, the latter being of significant consequence in terms of care and the type of relationship you have with the child. A downey will probably die before you do as a parent and requires life long care. Raising a gay-babe is comparatively inconsequential. If the gayness of one's babe does have consequences for the quality of life of the parents and the child then those consequences are largely cultural, something that is not an issue for western cultures. It would be something else if the context was a middle-eastern country as you could argue a gay-babe as well as the parents would live a worse life due to prejudice. In relation to case 3, I don't disagree with abortion being a form of elimination of life, I just don't think it is significant or equivalent to killing a person that would justify calling it "murder". A fetus is just the gestation of life. After a certain point though during pregnancy, abortion becomes too hard to stomach for most people I think as you kill something that very much looks like a human baby.

I'm personally very happy that I'm not dependent on any drugs, including caffeine. It doesn't even occur to me as an option. That's a good link by the way. It has a timeline for what you may experience when quitting and how to treat marijuana addiction.

Vlad Vexler is one of my favorite philosophers on YT. His understanding of Russian politics and the Russian worldview is illuminating and one of the best resources on Russian politics on the internet. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, as you can imagine. Context: he is chronically ill with ME but this situation has been more serious than normal. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn7XHZiW6EUgSuxItybLLMg/community?lb=Ugkx9_k_Si57ZDmeLfDilll0SfO7aNmfIvFD

Are these two ideas necessarily incompatible, the notion that populism is due to "democratic decline" versus capitalist corruption undermining the ability for common people to meaningfully participate in society and therefor eroding trust in institutions (did I get that right?)? I can see this critique of capitalism being in fact complimentary to Vexlers commentary and you could critique him for not acknowledging this dimension enough. I guess this would be an ideological fork in the road between your ideas and Vexlers assuming he believes in capitalism. I don't see that you disagree on the diagnosis necessarily but perhaps more on the solution.

You guys are being hyper logical. It is a ritual that solidifies the commitment. It is about how it makes you feel. The point is that the relationship is experienced as more actual once you're married with a social dimension to boot. What is the point of a funeral if the person is already dead? Just chuck grandma's corpse in the compost heap. Of course, there are risks which is why you have to be very selective with who you marry. A bad marriage could ruin your life. I've know someone who literally lost their hair due to stress over a divorce war (kids caught in the crossfire).

Having kids today is largely done for intrinsic reasons since kids are no longer a financial asset compared to before, so you have to be very honest with yourself if kids are for you as they are a sheer burden materially. Married men with kids are slightly more happy than childless married man according to the latter article in my previous, but there is probably some bias there considering they most likely wanted to and chose to have kids. Married men with kids are the happiest and unmarried men with no kids are the unhappiest accordingly. It is a generalization that getting married and having kids will make you happier but you probably need a very rich and meaningful life to beat intimate family connections in terms of happiness, one where a family would be incompatible. That is not most people probably. Or perhaps your just built different where family makes no sense. I have an autistic relative who would not have had kids in hindsight because they live so much in their own little world which they prefer to the bustle of family life.