Cyb3rManiak
@cyb3rmaniak.bsky.social
Actually, no, it wouldn't, unless it was a scientist.
You're not asking yourself why army ants live a nomad lifestyle, aggressively attacking all other ant colonies EXCEPT other army ant colonies. You don't really care.
Scientists do that for you.
And we're not that complicated to figure out.
You're not asking yourself why army ants live a nomad lifestyle, aggressively attacking all other ant colonies EXCEPT other army ant colonies. You don't really care.
Scientists do that for you.
And we're not that complicated to figure out.
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
Actually, no, it wouldn't, unless it was a scientist.
You're not asking yourself why army ants live a nomad lifestyle, aggressively attacking all other ant colonies EXCEPT other army ant colonies. You don't really care.
Scientists do that for you.
And we're not that complicated to figure out.
You're not asking yourself why army ants live a nomad lifestyle, aggressively attacking all other ant colonies EXCEPT other army ant colonies. You don't really care.
Scientists do that for you.
And we're not that complicated to figure out.
I was actually talking about more recent discoveries.
Like this one.
And we know for sure other animals suffer. So? Why should that be the criteria to define when killing is moral, and when it isn't?
I'm not trying to convince you to start killing animals.
I'm asking you to justify killing plants.
Like this one.
And we know for sure other animals suffer. So? Why should that be the criteria to define when killing is moral, and when it isn't?
I'm not trying to convince you to start killing animals.
I'm asking you to justify killing plants.
Plants can detect insect attacks by 'sniffing' each other's aromas
Plants have nowhere to run from their enemies - flying, crawling and jumping insects want to eat them alive. But plants are not defenceless. They deploy chemical toxins to deter insects. These can mak...
projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu
July 25, 2025 at 8:32 AM
I was actually talking about more recent discoveries.
Like this one.
And we know for sure other animals suffer. So? Why should that be the criteria to define when killing is moral, and when it isn't?
I'm not trying to convince you to start killing animals.
I'm asking you to justify killing plants.
Like this one.
And we know for sure other animals suffer. So? Why should that be the criteria to define when killing is moral, and when it isn't?
I'm not trying to convince you to start killing animals.
I'm asking you to justify killing plants.
Any suggestions?
What's the most impressive, or the most impactful example? What left you thinking about it long after you finished reading/watching/listening?
What's the most impressive, or the most impactful example? What left you thinking about it long after you finished reading/watching/listening?
July 25, 2025 at 6:50 AM
Any suggestions?
What's the most impressive, or the most impactful example? What left you thinking about it long after you finished reading/watching/listening?
What's the most impressive, or the most impactful example? What left you thinking about it long after you finished reading/watching/listening?
You don't have to be moral to not abuse dogs. If you're a normal person you will have empathy for them automatically. Seeing any animal get hurt, will hurt you. Laws are there to stop someone without empathy from abusing animals.
Morality is a fairytale we tell our children to make them act nicer.
Morality is a fairytale we tell our children to make them act nicer.
July 25, 2025 at 6:48 AM
You don't have to be moral to not abuse dogs. If you're a normal person you will have empathy for them automatically. Seeing any animal get hurt, will hurt you. Laws are there to stop someone without empathy from abusing animals.
Morality is a fairytale we tell our children to make them act nicer.
Morality is a fairytale we tell our children to make them act nicer.
To be moral, one has to sometimes make hard decisions. Historically we as a species failed at that. Even the Catholic church had slaves. You're taking a system that we invented to deal with other people, that we can barely follow, and apply it to animals. Or plants. Or bugs.
It's really pushing it.
It's really pushing it.
July 25, 2025 at 6:48 AM
To be moral, one has to sometimes make hard decisions. Historically we as a species failed at that. Even the Catholic church had slaves. You're taking a system that we invented to deal with other people, that we can barely follow, and apply it to animals. Or plants. Or bugs.
It's really pushing it.
It's really pushing it.
I feel just fine about my actions, and don't need approval from strangers on the internet.
I gravitate to Utilitarianism, with a splash of Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB).
Morality is something we invented in order to have a society. To deal with and convince other humans.
I gravitate to Utilitarianism, with a splash of Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB).
Morality is something we invented in order to have a society. To deal with and convince other humans.
July 25, 2025 at 6:48 AM
I feel just fine about my actions, and don't need approval from strangers on the internet.
I gravitate to Utilitarianism, with a splash of Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB).
Morality is something we invented in order to have a society. To deal with and convince other humans.
I gravitate to Utilitarianism, with a splash of Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB).
Morality is something we invented in order to have a society. To deal with and convince other humans.
Something occurred to me. In the classic example of someone taking a bug apart, does your mind go to an adult doing it? Or a kid?
Like burning ants with a magnifying glass... That's something I associate with kids.
Like burning ants with a magnifying glass... That's something I associate with kids.
July 25, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Something occurred to me. In the classic example of someone taking a bug apart, does your mind go to an adult doing it? Or a kid?
Like burning ants with a magnifying glass... That's something I associate with kids.
Like burning ants with a magnifying glass... That's something I associate with kids.
The sentience of other people doesn't stop us from doing horrible things to them, or allowing horrible things happen to them. And it's not that all people are monsters.
At the end of the day we're monkeys with smartphones. And we only really care about other similar nearby monkeys. It's that simple.
At the end of the day we're monkeys with smartphones. And we only really care about other similar nearby monkeys. It's that simple.
July 25, 2025 at 5:46 AM
The sentience of other people doesn't stop us from doing horrible things to them, or allowing horrible things happen to them. And it's not that all people are monsters.
At the end of the day we're monkeys with smartphones. And we only really care about other similar nearby monkeys. It's that simple.
At the end of the day we're monkeys with smartphones. And we only really care about other similar nearby monkeys. It's that simple.
Did you not see the "let's get stupid" part?
if you do want to criticize at least get my argument straight. There's no difference between farming animals and farming plants. You eventually kill them on purpose.
We like to use sentience as the line we shouldn't cross, but that's almost arbitrary.
if you do want to criticize at least get my argument straight. There's no difference between farming animals and farming plants. You eventually kill them on purpose.
We like to use sentience as the line we shouldn't cross, but that's almost arbitrary.
July 25, 2025 at 5:46 AM
Did you not see the "let's get stupid" part?
if you do want to criticize at least get my argument straight. There's no difference between farming animals and farming plants. You eventually kill them on purpose.
We like to use sentience as the line we shouldn't cross, but that's almost arbitrary.
if you do want to criticize at least get my argument straight. There's no difference between farming animals and farming plants. You eventually kill them on purpose.
We like to use sentience as the line we shouldn't cross, but that's almost arbitrary.
I have many arguments against Veganism, but I'm not here to argue against it. You can be Vegan all you want to. Have a blast.
I'm here because SOME people who become Vegan become missionaries of a sort. SOME believe that it's immoral to eat meat, and so they need to preach. To convert. To shame.
I'm here because SOME people who become Vegan become missionaries of a sort. SOME believe that it's immoral to eat meat, and so they need to preach. To convert. To shame.
July 25, 2025 at 5:29 AM
I have many arguments against Veganism, but I'm not here to argue against it. You can be Vegan all you want to. Have a blast.
I'm here because SOME people who become Vegan become missionaries of a sort. SOME believe that it's immoral to eat meat, and so they need to preach. To convert. To shame.
I'm here because SOME people who become Vegan become missionaries of a sort. SOME believe that it's immoral to eat meat, and so they need to preach. To convert. To shame.
Well, we are talking about Veganism here. You guys/gals live in La La Land, so I'm not ashamed of taking a ridiculous idea to a ridiculous conclusion.
I don't really believe that. But thinking that if you succeed, you won't be harming anybody is also not true. This is not a win-win scenario.
I don't really believe that. But thinking that if you succeed, you won't be harming anybody is also not true. This is not a win-win scenario.
July 25, 2025 at 5:25 AM
Well, we are talking about Veganism here. You guys/gals live in La La Land, so I'm not ashamed of taking a ridiculous idea to a ridiculous conclusion.
I don't really believe that. But thinking that if you succeed, you won't be harming anybody is also not true. This is not a win-win scenario.
I don't really believe that. But thinking that if you succeed, you won't be harming anybody is also not true. This is not a win-win scenario.
Right now, you're harmless. Annoying, self-righteous, but harmless.
And if you're saying you'll object to any political movement - I'll believe you. So let's play this out - you get enough support in your country to get lobbyists to push laws that will decimate meat farming.
Will you oppose them?
And if you're saying you'll object to any political movement - I'll believe you. So let's play this out - you get enough support in your country to get lobbyists to push laws that will decimate meat farming.
Will you oppose them?
July 25, 2025 at 5:19 AM
Right now, you're harmless. Annoying, self-righteous, but harmless.
And if you're saying you'll object to any political movement - I'll believe you. So let's play this out - you get enough support in your country to get lobbyists to push laws that will decimate meat farming.
Will you oppose them?
And if you're saying you'll object to any political movement - I'll believe you. So let's play this out - you get enough support in your country to get lobbyists to push laws that will decimate meat farming.
Will you oppose them?
Of course. I agree with you. But you won't be able to convince enough people to stop eating meat, just like nobody can convince people to stop drinking alcohol. Logic and compassion won't work.
The only way this movement will eventually achieve anything is using politics. Laws. Force.
The only way this movement will eventually achieve anything is using politics. Laws. Force.
July 25, 2025 at 5:19 AM
Of course. I agree with you. But you won't be able to convince enough people to stop eating meat, just like nobody can convince people to stop drinking alcohol. Logic and compassion won't work.
The only way this movement will eventually achieve anything is using politics. Laws. Force.
The only way this movement will eventually achieve anything is using politics. Laws. Force.
You'd have the same fears with any other industry. It might be justified, might not be. For example - truckers and self-driving vehicles.
The difference is cigarettes kill you. In the case of farming animals - you're going to force people to give up something healthy, for "reasons".
The difference is cigarettes kill you. In the case of farming animals - you're going to force people to give up something healthy, for "reasons".
July 25, 2025 at 5:02 AM
You'd have the same fears with any other industry. It might be justified, might not be. For example - truckers and self-driving vehicles.
The difference is cigarettes kill you. In the case of farming animals - you're going to force people to give up something healthy, for "reasons".
The difference is cigarettes kill you. In the case of farming animals - you're going to force people to give up something healthy, for "reasons".
Farm animals die out in every country that follows this. They still live in others, and now black markets exist.
More people are sick now, because supplements are expensive. There's no milk or cheese. Medicine is more expensive. Clothes are all synthetic.
No harm done. I'm sure it's all worth it.
More people are sick now, because supplements are expensive. There's no milk or cheese. Medicine is more expensive. Clothes are all synthetic.
No harm done. I'm sure it's all worth it.
July 22, 2025 at 4:22 PM
Farm animals die out in every country that follows this. They still live in others, and now black markets exist.
More people are sick now, because supplements are expensive. There's no milk or cheese. Medicine is more expensive. Clothes are all synthetic.
No harm done. I'm sure it's all worth it.
More people are sick now, because supplements are expensive. There's no milk or cheese. Medicine is more expensive. Clothes are all synthetic.
No harm done. I'm sure it's all worth it.
Let's see if it all adds up.
Harm reduction is a worthwhile goal. You want to reduce harm.
So you're aiming for millions of people to be out of a job. Either by outlawing farming of animals, or convincing the public it's evil to eat meat, leading to a boycott.
Should they learn to code?
Harm reduction is a worthwhile goal. You want to reduce harm.
So you're aiming for millions of people to be out of a job. Either by outlawing farming of animals, or convincing the public it's evil to eat meat, leading to a boycott.
Should they learn to code?
July 22, 2025 at 4:22 PM
Let's see if it all adds up.
Harm reduction is a worthwhile goal. You want to reduce harm.
So you're aiming for millions of people to be out of a job. Either by outlawing farming of animals, or convincing the public it's evil to eat meat, leading to a boycott.
Should they learn to code?
Harm reduction is a worthwhile goal. You want to reduce harm.
So you're aiming for millions of people to be out of a job. Either by outlawing farming of animals, or convincing the public it's evil to eat meat, leading to a boycott.
Should they learn to code?
I'm telling you that there is no right thing.
That's something you and Catholics share - you feel guilty, so you make up stories and use whatever you can, virtuous or not, to justify them. That doesn't make it right. It makes you one sick puppy.
You're your own worst enemy. You judge yourself.
That's something you and Catholics share - you feel guilty, so you make up stories and use whatever you can, virtuous or not, to justify them. That doesn't make it right. It makes you one sick puppy.
You're your own worst enemy. You judge yourself.
July 22, 2025 at 3:56 PM
I'm telling you that there is no right thing.
That's something you and Catholics share - you feel guilty, so you make up stories and use whatever you can, virtuous or not, to justify them. That doesn't make it right. It makes you one sick puppy.
You're your own worst enemy. You judge yourself.
That's something you and Catholics share - you feel guilty, so you make up stories and use whatever you can, virtuous or not, to justify them. That doesn't make it right. It makes you one sick puppy.
You're your own worst enemy. You judge yourself.
I understand it. I'm also aware that it's a complete cop-out.
Philosophy stalled a while back. Everything that has to do with life, sentience, consciousness or "soul" is still murky at best.
You might as well sum it up as "If you're able to kill an animal, you get to eat it." It's not good or bad.
Philosophy stalled a while back. Everything that has to do with life, sentience, consciousness or "soul" is still murky at best.
You might as well sum it up as "If you're able to kill an animal, you get to eat it." It's not good or bad.
July 22, 2025 at 3:49 PM
I understand it. I'm also aware that it's a complete cop-out.
Philosophy stalled a while back. Everything that has to do with life, sentience, consciousness or "soul" is still murky at best.
You might as well sum it up as "If you're able to kill an animal, you get to eat it." It's not good or bad.
Philosophy stalled a while back. Everything that has to do with life, sentience, consciousness or "soul" is still murky at best.
You might as well sum it up as "If you're able to kill an animal, you get to eat it." It's not good or bad.
I don't care. I'm willing to pay to plant more, and I don't care about bugs.
I also don't believe all that crap about plants feeling, or being sentient. The point of that is to show you that you're making decisions based on emotion. Not logic. Which is totally fine, but you need to own it.
I also don't believe all that crap about plants feeling, or being sentient. The point of that is to show you that you're making decisions based on emotion. Not logic. Which is totally fine, but you need to own it.
July 22, 2025 at 3:45 PM
I don't care. I'm willing to pay to plant more, and I don't care about bugs.
I also don't believe all that crap about plants feeling, or being sentient. The point of that is to show you that you're making decisions based on emotion. Not logic. Which is totally fine, but you need to own it.
I also don't believe all that crap about plants feeling, or being sentient. The point of that is to show you that you're making decisions based on emotion. Not logic. Which is totally fine, but you need to own it.
I would say harm reduction means improving the lives of cows and pigs, not letting them die out because you think their lives suck. Who are you to judge?
How many lives were/are saved by pigs alone? Medicine. Skin grafts. Trials. You're willing to give that up or make it even more expensive?
How many lives were/are saved by pigs alone? Medicine. Skin grafts. Trials. You're willing to give that up or make it even more expensive?
July 22, 2025 at 3:41 PM
I would say harm reduction means improving the lives of cows and pigs, not letting them die out because you think their lives suck. Who are you to judge?
How many lives were/are saved by pigs alone? Medicine. Skin grafts. Trials. You're willing to give that up or make it even more expensive?
How many lives were/are saved by pigs alone? Medicine. Skin grafts. Trials. You're willing to give that up or make it even more expensive?
Something doesn't start or stop being ethical based on how it benefits you as an individual. Ethics are supposed to be based on something other than yourself.
It's either ok to kill kids, or not. It shouldn't matter how it would benefit you. Get it? You're on the same shaky ground.
It's either ok to kill kids, or not. It shouldn't matter how it would benefit you. Get it? You're on the same shaky ground.
July 22, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Something doesn't start or stop being ethical based on how it benefits you as an individual. Ethics are supposed to be based on something other than yourself.
It's either ok to kill kids, or not. It shouldn't matter how it would benefit you. Get it? You're on the same shaky ground.
It's either ok to kill kids, or not. It shouldn't matter how it would benefit you. Get it? You're on the same shaky ground.
If you didn't have access to plants, you would have no issues with eating animals.
That's ethical egoism. It's moral because it benefits me.
I'm the king of the hill. And in spite of that I choose to eat plants. That's how awesome I am. I'm doing the most ethical thing ever.
Delusion.
That's ethical egoism. It's moral because it benefits me.
I'm the king of the hill. And in spite of that I choose to eat plants. That's how awesome I am. I'm doing the most ethical thing ever.
Delusion.
July 22, 2025 at 3:34 PM
If you didn't have access to plants, you would have no issues with eating animals.
That's ethical egoism. It's moral because it benefits me.
I'm the king of the hill. And in spite of that I choose to eat plants. That's how awesome I am. I'm doing the most ethical thing ever.
Delusion.
That's ethical egoism. It's moral because it benefits me.
I'm the king of the hill. And in spite of that I choose to eat plants. That's how awesome I am. I'm doing the most ethical thing ever.
Delusion.
Fine. Let's get stupid... Two can play that game.
To grow one tomato plant you kill many many bugs. Sentient or not, you're snuffing out life left and right. Thousands. Millions. A genocide.
You cram and abuse the plants. They live in horrible conditions, and get cut forcefully as soon as possible.
To grow one tomato plant you kill many many bugs. Sentient or not, you're snuffing out life left and right. Thousands. Millions. A genocide.
You cram and abuse the plants. They live in horrible conditions, and get cut forcefully as soon as possible.
July 22, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Fine. Let's get stupid... Two can play that game.
To grow one tomato plant you kill many many bugs. Sentient or not, you're snuffing out life left and right. Thousands. Millions. A genocide.
You cram and abuse the plants. They live in horrible conditions, and get cut forcefully as soon as possible.
To grow one tomato plant you kill many many bugs. Sentient or not, you're snuffing out life left and right. Thousands. Millions. A genocide.
You cram and abuse the plants. They live in horrible conditions, and get cut forcefully as soon as possible.
It also causes all of them to live. The joke is that we wouldn't have pigs, if we didn't breed them for their meat. And when we stop eating them, they would become an endangered species.
We breed more animals -> We plants more crops. More life. Not less.
We breed more animals -> We plants more crops. More life. Not less.
July 22, 2025 at 3:22 PM
It also causes all of them to live. The joke is that we wouldn't have pigs, if we didn't breed them for their meat. And when we stop eating them, they would become an endangered species.
We breed more animals -> We plants more crops. More life. Not less.
We breed more animals -> We plants more crops. More life. Not less.
And personally, I don't see the harm in more animals and plants living and dying. That's what we humans do. We multiply. It doesn't matter that we know our kids will eventually die. That's part of life, and we accept it.
As long as the animal lives a good life, and has a painless death, I'm fine.
As long as the animal lives a good life, and has a painless death, I'm fine.
July 22, 2025 at 1:42 PM
And personally, I don't see the harm in more animals and plants living and dying. That's what we humans do. We multiply. It doesn't matter that we know our kids will eventually die. That's part of life, and we accept it.
As long as the animal lives a good life, and has a painless death, I'm fine.
As long as the animal lives a good life, and has a painless death, I'm fine.