this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1097 points (100.0% liked)

196

16461 readers
1690 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Linux users.... The vegans of IT.

[–] ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And just like the real world, as annoying as vegans are, they ultimately are ideologically right

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Eh... both are questionable. Morally superior, maybe, but definitely not right.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Could you explain the difference?

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Both aren't really sustainable. Open source doesn't pay live-able wages without some kind of proprietary component and going full vegan is very detrimental to the health and sometimes even the cause itself. I'm not a dictionary and english isn't my first language, but in my understanding, the "right" thing should at least be viable, without taking compromises from the other side.

To clarify, I'm not saying that open-source and veganism are bad or we shouldn't aim towards those. What I'm saying is that, while half-opensource like redhat and half-veganism (on supplements) is viable, so is all-meat diet and all-proprietary software, but not going full RMS opensource-only and getting rid of all animal-based products without causing even more damage to the ecosystem with the alternatives. Maybe we're missing some puzzle pieces (like properly implemented communism) or the end-goal is a bit off, or, maybe, going half-way is actually the "right" thing all along.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

as annoying as vegans are, they ultimately are ideologically right

about what?

[–] ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The meat industry overall is bad for everyone, the amount of food it requires to feed the meat we eat is extremely wasteful. From an economic standpoint, meat is "bad", let alone the lobbying done by the meat industry.

Eating meat increases the chances of heart disease. Some protein is good, but we eat way too much. From a public health standpoint, meat is "bad"

In general, it's good to lessen harm. Factory slaughtering living things that grew up in what's effectively a prison is not lessening harm.

But, I do like the taste of meat unfortunately. Ill splurge on lab grown meat when it becomes available, but even though I'm a hypocrite for liking the taste of meat doesn't mean vegans are wrong because they're annoying to deal with

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

the amount of food it requires to feed the meat we eat is extremely wasteful

a lot of what we give livestock are parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. that's the opposite of wasteful.

[–] max@feddit.nl 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Parts of plans that were specifically grown for livestock that we won’t eat, that is. At least a big part.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i'm talking about waste product from our crops, like cottonseed from the textile industry or soymeal leftover from making soybean oil or silage.

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And he's talking about crops specifically grown for livestock. Of which there is quite a lot. Hell, even pets that aren't considered live-stock outright, like Horses, consume tremendous amounts of feed that isn't just by-products.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

And he’s talking about crops specifically grown for livestock.

what i said was true. what they said wasn't nuance, it was stated as a contradiction. your framing of it as nuance is a red herring.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Factory slaughtering living things that grew up in what’s effectively a prison is not lessening harm.

you can't know that. consequentialist ethics run into this all the time: you can't actually know what the future holds, and it may be that without the current agricultural system, even more harm would have been done.

[–] heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I see your argument that thinking how a pig in a meat factory feels is just speculation, but there is a point where we have to think about the future and speculate what could be and how possible it is. If we have better options now, and, maybe not as a single human, but collectively can act to stop this harm with a great possibility, I think it's worth it to speculate. I don't no where you draw this line, but it is beyond mine, so I am willing to speculate that this is the better way.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

thinking how a pig in a meat factory feels is just speculation

that's not what i'm saying here. i'm saying that they could be experiencing an immense amount of suffering, but we can't know if that is saving the world from an even greater suffering sometime in the future.

[–] heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And I would say that I am ready to speculate, that stopping this suffering does not conclude to more.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

you can't really know, though. the model you presented for right behavior precludes you from ever knowing if you're doing the right thing.

[–] Mint@lemmy.one 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So majority keep it to themselves, and those who aren't vegans bother them about being vegan?

[–] Schmeckinger@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

But a VERY loud minority then.

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

so... constantly and unprovoked forced to defend their choice of OS and refute bullshit myths by Windows users?