• 20 Posts
  • 2.06K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • that’s the thing: no one knows. No one agrees. Not even vegans. It doesn’t stop them pushing out misinformation about it.

    For all the facts we do actually have and agree on i could make just as many claims that there is consciousness as they claim there isn’t.

    Meanwhile you have anti abortion claims that life starts at conception. This makes an assumption of when consciousness starts. Still not fact.

    And scientists don’t want to be withheld from work on plants for the fear of ethics. (Yet they tear mice apart)They will go as far as make no effort of reference or crosscheck even on the discussion of consciousness(even shows in the above link at the bottom of the study) like they know so little they can’t even begin with reference that was ever agreed upon and burry any that contradict their hubris while making an assumption on consciousness.

    All three of these groups are in constant contradiction depending on comfort level of ethics around consciousness. It’s like a shitty ballet around a non fact.



  • good catch. also the end of this so-called study has a bunch of bunk too:

    Data availability

    Not applicable.

    Compliance with ethical standards

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    Consent to participate

    All authors consent.

    Code availability

    Not applicable.

    i cant imagine how this thing got printed. it looks like something rfk junior spat out.

    All that is missing is working out topless in some blue jeans with raw milk in a hot tub and kid rock smaking himself in the face failing a mic drop.





  • As I stated before: you’re inserting your own hubris of what consious means as if we agree.

    I don’t agree with your definition of consciousness.

    This means we cannot have an honest conversation on what that means as we already disagree with what consiousness means.

    This does not mean I disagree plant based is valid on the other arguments. Just not this one.

    As i said: it is unethical to even suggest it’s a matter of judgement on ethics as you’ve already down graded something in order just to be comfortable to judge someone else on their ethics. A complete discard of plants from the equation is egotistical of yourself to even go there.

    you revealled you are already unequipped with ethics to be arguing ethics.

    You are you’re own paradox of lack of ethics.



  • it really has come a long way in a short amount of time. took me only 2 months to learn it to the level that made me comfortable on it as a daily driver and even then i think 2 months is too generous if not for the fact that i built a very specific spec box for a very specific tech purpose using lots of core.if not for that it would have likely been less than a day to be setup on a linux workstation out of the box doing average computer stuff.

    And wine and window emulators are plenty on linux so you can run windows programs anyways so there really is no missing out. i run windows office software and 7zip out of heroic only cuz i like having buttons and icons and a ui.



  • Veganism.

    Their entire basis of preaching guilt over the consiousness angle was egotistic, overzealous and unproven.(either all plant matter and all animal matter are consious or they are all not. Therefore everyone, no matter what matter they consume to survive, remains guilty of ending a consiousness or not and therefore neither diet maintains the higher ethical ground to guilt from. I will not be convinced otherwise. And especially not while every white paper starts with defining consiousness is always in their own pure hubris)

    It was not until it was called ‘Plant based’ that i got on board as that research is proven. yes: it is healthier, yes: less emmissions. yes: uses less matter to consume. yes: more sustainable. (Although not sustainable for those who remain unable to digest beans as a form of protien. but that is another story)

    Ethical? in the form of ‘less matter’ one might try to argue but i would not use any guilt angle on ethical stance so long as any matter that may be argued to contain consiousness is consumed. No ethical stance starts with measuring anything in value as ‘less than’ another so long as it is used just to justify to find their own comfort to judge others from.