DarthFrodo

I know, but that's the only way regular people get meat nowadays.

It's also totally natural for humans to put those that we consider inferior into horrible death camps after all.

Der Titel ist etwas ungüstig. Das ist ein Bericht darüber mit welcher Strategie die AfD Arbeiter überzeugt und wie deren Wähler mit Gewerkschaften interagieren. Sehr hörenswert finde ich.

Ich hatte den Eindruck, dass Steinmeier als er meinte dass man die Sprache der Rechtsextremen nicht übernehmen soll, vermutlich auch Politiker gemeint hat. Diplomatisch bzw. vage bleiben muss er so oder so. Aber vielleicht betrachte ich das auch zu wohlwollend.

The animal rights logic is usually the following: Animals have the capacity to suffer and a will to live, therefore they deserve a right to not be harmed or killed needlessly.

No sane person would argue that they should have the right to vote or anything like that, just the basic ones. I feel like there's a lot of confusion about this.

E.g. kicking a dog on a whim violates their right to not be harmed and should be illegal in an ideal world.

It seems like you share the ethical concern. Why wouldn't you be in favor of granting them these two basic rights then?

Maybe your problem is with extending this logic to something like killing a pig for taste pleasure compared to kicking a dog? I'd argue that if you're against the latter, there's no ethical reason to defend or even support the former. Something being culturally ingrained or pleasurable doesn't automatically justify it after all.

For the first situation, 3 h a day is a lot of time. I don't think we should expect people to make such big sacrifices every day, at least if they work full time. People need leisure to stay healthy too. If it was 1h or 1:30h it would be reasonable to take the bike imo, but at 3h I'd cut them some slack. There are simply much more effective climate measures that we as a society should implement. They shouldn't buy a new gas car if they can avoid it though.

For the second situation:

You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving

But it also causes a lot more animal cruelty than the minuscule climate impact of one person commuting. Over the years, it would mean that many animals would have to endure an extremely miserable and painful life on factory farms with constant abuse and neglect, just to satisfy taste buds.

Compared to a warming of 0,00000000000000000001 °C or something like that, which has no measurable impact on any life on its own. Animal agriculture even has a larger climate impact than all cars on earth combined.

A more general analogy: By driving a car, you'll do some miniscule harm to people and the environment. But if you'd knowingly chose to buy products that were produced in literal slavery conditions, and directly funded slavery that way, this would be a whole different ethical issue.

In reality, even if a person is addicted to burgers like a drug addict, they could easily buy plant-based burger patties that taste really similar to regular ones and make their own burgers. Vegan cheese isnt quite the same yet, but a little difference in taste certainly doesn't justify torturing animals on factory farms. You still have essentially the same taste experience, especially after a small adjustment period.

In most countries, McDonalds even has plant based burgers available afaik.

If someone is literally starving and there's only meat available, it can be argued that it would be vegan to eat it in that situation.

The definition from the vegan society 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.

Is climate change cruel to animals? It's not intentional harm, but it causes suffering. People will weigh that differently based on the ethical framework (deontology - utilitarianism spectrum).

Going on vacation by plane arguably isn't vegan from a utilitarian perspective. Deontologists might still see it as vegan.

If someone needs to drive a car and can't afford an EV, it's not practical to avoid fossil fuels in this case. So that would be vegan either way.

I think the "avoiding as far as possible and practicable" principle also makes a lot of sense for the use of fossil fuels by environmentalists.

Who said capitalism isn't a problem? I don't see any comments claiming that.

Capitalism incentives the exploitation of humans and animals alike. It's possible to recognize that both are a problem.

Its much weirder when leftists unironically believe that "animals are just animals, making them suffer is fine because they are inferior to me", which is literally the supremacist thinking that racists and classists invoke to justify their mistreatment of other groups too.

I feel like lemmy.world is a bit shielded from tankies in general. I see some posts from lemmy.ml from time to time but rarely insane tankie posts. Engaging with political posts from there might not be the best idea indeed, maybe there should be warnings for those who are not aware lol

Welcome!

There are good Lemmy apps if you don't have one yet. You can search "for Lemmy" to see most of them (in the Android play store at least). I like Voyager for Lemmy.

but like cmon, can we have SOME days where we can escape and just enjoy the internet guys?

You might want to block some keywords then, as there's also a lot of American politics on Lemmy. You can filter most of it that way.

Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels were the only affordable energy sources that could meet the demand of industrialized countries. Until 5-10 years ago.

We're now in a situation where most people can still pretend that climate change isn't serious, and the fossil fuel lobby is stronger than ever. And yet over 90% of new electricity generation is already renewable, because it has simply become cheaper than coal and gas power in the last years.

As climate impacts worsen, the pressure to decarbonize will only get larger. The lobbies have been fighting tooth and nail against the energy transition for over 40 years, but they are rapidly loosing ground now in most countries.

It's right to be alarmed about climate change, there will be serious long-term impacts, but it seems irrational to be completely fatalistic. Just comparing the battery prices and solar panel prices and ev market with 10 years ago reveals a truly massive shift. And this is just the beginning of the energy transition.