fantoozie

I think that’s a very sanitary answer. My opinion? It’s not some mysterious sociological quandary to unravel why men are sexually frustrated and lonely. These young men have few prospects, a bleak future, and have been raised with exploitative social media that’s slowly eroded their critical thinking skills and empathy towards others. Their failure to achieve a life they’ve been told they’re entitled to all their lives breeds resentment and is being manipulated against women and minorities as a function of social engineering through social media algorithms.

Right it was meant to be facetious but I appreciate you posting this nonetheless.

Agreed. These jobs are overwhelmingly concentratedin developing nations and pay pathetic wages, too.

I’m actually impressed at how ridiculous this is. But I’ll bite:

What’s the plight of men?

Is it sexual frustration?

Is the solution ensuring that young men have access to sex, regardless of the means or impact on women?

If that isn’t feasible, are we simply supposed to engage in war to cull off these sex-starved, victimized men who seemingly are incapable of contributing to society in any other way then impregnating women and waging violence?

If so, what is the benefit of living in such a world?

This they gets it.

So veganism isn’t related to or affected by agriculture? The plight of farmworkers worldwide is invalid because it’s not as traumatic as slaughterhouse workers? You keep trying to frame my argument as anti-veganism, but it’s really not. At this point I can only consider that I’ve triggered you in some ridiculous way that has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about

I mean throwing up a study about how vegans in the UK produce less greenhouse gas emissions than high-meat eaters only proves that veganism is better at producing less pollution. I never argued that it’s not.

But the study you referenced doesn’t account for worker exploitation, inequity in food distribution, or trade asymmetries. I think plant-based diets are fine, but many vegan products occupy industries that still perpetuate monocropping and resource-intensive production lines that produce massive profits for executives while leaving farmers with the short end of the stick.

I don’t have a bone to pick with vegans, I just think being vegan is a stop along the way to a healthy planet, not the destination. I’m striving to be as nuanced as I can when I offer my critique, which is essentially we need to start discussing why slaughtering animals is morally bad but exploiting workers and agriculture in third world countries isn’t. Having a healthy planet and lifting people out of poverty shouldn’t be mutually exclusive goals.

Yeah still condescending. Whatevs

To be fair you haven’t even offered anything I can respond to; you’re just flailing.

I don’t see a need to be passive aggressive just because a stranger doesn’t agree with you. More the point: it’s only ignorant if you think you we live in a vacuum

If you can’t understand, then you’re proving my point.

Loved that movie. I guess I see where you’re coming from; but your rhetoric stinks of elitism and condescension.

My perspective is that forcing people to become organ donors feeds into a narrative that humans as physical entities are only significant in terms of the value they create (in this case, value manifests as the possible transplantable organs). This is a fundamentally Western perspective, informed by economic theories that promote the valuation of all tangible assets without considering exogenous variables that could adversely effect “value”, or otherwise writing them off as costs.

I’m opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices. As I said earlier, I believe your argument lacks validity outside of a Western context.

So what’s the criteria: adherence to a socially acceptable set of values and ideals? Full development of mental capacities? Literacy tests? Psycho analysis? Eugenics extends beyond physical phenotypical characteristics.

Under extenuating circumstances your argument does hold true. However being religious doesn’t automatically mean you are not smart or somehow incapable of logic.

I think the issue for me is less about not harming animals but more about the massive infrastructure of resource extraction, exploited labor force, and resource-intensive production that directly contributes to pollution and the undermining of low-income populations to subsidize vegan plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. Vegans that support this industry arguably cause just as much harm to animals (including human workers and beasts of burden) as your average Texas Roadhouse customer.

Yeah because everyone deciding on their own code of morals and ethics will surely contribute to social cohesion… :/

I don’t necessarily disagree, but this game is just sooo short-sighted.

Your perspective is entirely based on Western views of autonomy and social utility. Diminishing other cultural perspectives on the sanctity of the human body doesn’t make you enlightened, you’re legit just ignorant.

How eugenics of you

I like your sentiment but I have to admit I’m wary of perpetuating the narrative of personal responsibility, since it’s been used so often to excuse discrimination against people for perceived ‘deviant choices’. I would argue that the manifestations of individual behavioral dysfunction are a function of the corrosion of traditional social bonds combined with the unrealized societal effects of new communication technologies. Like a feedback loop of compromised people consuming media that validates their harmful or extreme worldviews.