epidemics start with sick farm animals that come in contact with humans.

What do you think farmers do? Do you think they don’t hire outside hands for cheap labor to come into contact with the animals? This lady was more safe in entering farm spaces and the handling of the chickens than any farm worker that would have otherwise come into contact with them. She follows very specific procedures to ensure disease doesn’t spread. They have a section in an investivigation manual on biosecurity & PPE you can read here: https://media.dxe.io/wl/?id=22ONdgUDbuBaOD7tHcqKEJQcNkLGaFtA

Bird Flu can cull an entire shed in 3-4 days. Bird flu is now in dairy cows. It’s in cats. It doesn’t stop with birds anymore. If you are worried about epidemics you should discourage eating chickens, turkeys, ducks, cows (& their milk/butter/cheese). Stop normalizing these CAFO operations. Focusing on animal activists is exactly what a bunch of chud billionare animal abusers want you to do.

Go Vegan :)

Embrace the paradox, humans are arguably the greatest rights violators in all forms of violence, but they are also the only beings capable of granting rights through moral agency. The paradox is also true of anthropocentric climate change, it’s creator, but also it’s only possible resolver. The environment only has instrumental value to conscious beings so it would miss the mark to assume the absence of humans is in anyone’s (including animals) best interest.

Guess we should just try to get through each others thick skulls instead of being edgy :/

Yikes.

Hella righteous brother 😎👉👉

Diet

Health

Respond to comment about making healthy/ethical decisions and people’s defensiveness about it.

Yeah that seems ‘tangentially’ related. You sound like the guy the commenter was describing.

Doesnt matter if you dislike vegans. Stop abusing animals 💁🏼‍♂️

Go Vegan :)

You are consistently not a racist piece of shit everyday, right? What’s that religion called?

For the love of God eat fiber and drink water. How hard is this?

Based. but also, cringe.

Vegan here.

I don’t think it’s speciesist to have subjective preference for a certain set of traits found in certain species, it’s only speciesist to use the absence of those traits to justify exploiting or oppressing others that don’t have them. I have trait preferences in my sexual partners for example, but that doesn’t mean I get to be a piece of shit to others, or that I’m a piece of shit for not seeking those partners I find less desirable.

Some animals for example just work bettter in the home. I dont bring a whale to my house not because I’m speciesist, but because it’s expensive impractal requires constant attention and is frankly not in their best interest.

Much appreciated! Carnie hot takes need not apply.

I CAN’T SPELL it’s less points of failure.

Quieter, less point’s of failure, and in many cases taking up less space. I have compressed air for dust. In the consumer sphere and almost any enthusiast sphere, air cooling > > > water cooling

I imagine a lot of people have the air on for indoor animals while they go to the office.

So if i want an external society to stop genociding for abritrary reasons, and I encourage my society to openly condemn it – even consider physical intervention where no alternative works, I’m the nazi? Did America do a nazi when they invaded Germany to end Hitler’s expansion/regime?

You don’t think animals are conscious? Or do you not care that they are conscious?

We can agree to disagree on our differing views of morality, you do you, and I do me.

I’m a moral objectivist, I literally won’t do that 🤣

Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don’t know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don’t know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens 😵‍💫

I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don’t see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you’re in contradiction because you are once again saying you don’t get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I’d do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.