Your reply wasn’t removed.

I can only assume it is not showing because the parent comment you replied to was removed for rule breaches.

I live in fear that the Phoronix forums will federate…

Also limiting rule updates to new extension versions will essentially make it impossible for adblockers to outpace anti-adblock interventions.

Why do you expect that Edge wouldn’t adopt Google-like MV3 along with Chrome?

Microsoft adopted Chromium in order to minimise development costs in a product it doesn’t see as core, something which would be incurred if it had to maintain its own fork of mv3, and is incentivized through Bing to pursue a similar approach.

deleted by creator

I can’t agree with this.

People pretty much only make decisions based on emotions. This is even pretty well established as the case in modern jurisprudence; judges work backwards based on their emotional presuppositions.

People don’t like these sorts of comments, because they don’t want to be confronted with the impacts of their practices, and experience the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance.

While I might use other language for carnists, they would not be happy with vegan arguments and discourse unless it is completely supportive of their position or otherwise silent. I don’t see anything wrong with OP posting this sort of language in a vegan forum to vent.

Completely agree.

It’s more about how researchers actually appear to be deconstructing the human-centric notion of language to include non-human animals. This is particularly good in this regard as it involves one of the species we treat the worst.

In my view such progress is critical to undoing our commodification of animals which underlies and justifies carnism.

My personal view is that one shouldn’t eat it.

Part of the rationale for going vegan is to impose economic outcomes on businesses as a result of your demand or lack thereof. Another part is to challenge the status quo and normalise a more ethical alternative.

My view in this situation is that the ethical thing to do if you asked for a vegan item and they didn’t do that is to go back to this place and request that they make you a new item. This imposes a cost on the business, that hopefully means they will be more careful in the future. It also prevents your small portion of profit from fueling demand for animal products by removing or cancelling out that sale from their calculations.

The other portion, is that politely informing the shop about it, educates them on what vegans require, and also normalises veganism and challenges the carnist status quo, both to the business and others around you.

Amazingly interesting!

It can produce more savings sure in terms of electricity costs, but when including capital, solar is presently much more cost effective. In my area some 6.8kw panels have a four year ROI.

Without going into the details of the complete field of life-cycle assessment, this is not how co-products are assessed.

The leather industry position generally, is that leather is a byproduct, which would allow them to conveniently exclude all emissions and impacts prior to the slaughter and (some of the) torture of the cattle.

Leather though, is not a by-product but a co-product - this is well established. What this means is that it is so significant an income stream, that it is likely that many or even all of the cattle in a given group would not have been raised and slaughtered in the first place without both or multiple income streams coming from that slaughter. This is why LCA calculates the entire lifecycle of the cattle, and is the position adopted for leather by independent international sustainability groups and academia generally.

I’m curious what sized system you are putting in that costs that much.

An 8kw solar system usually costs a bit over $8k and at least in many areas seems to have a ROI of a bit over 6 years at most and often much less.

Even plastic is better for the environment than leather.

It is also false.

Studies and LCA analysis have revealed that leather products are far more damaging to the environment than even PU leather.

This is due to the enormous environmental impact of the cattle themselves, including land clearing, water use, direct emissions, etc.

I don’t think banning carnists is the solution.

I do think that rules similar to /r/vegan would help a lot.

I think another forum would be better for arguments against veganism, otherwise this forum will just get swamped with upvoted carnist answers to vegan or vegan-curious questions, or upvoted arguments against veganism. We will also routinely see the same fallacies over and over again.

Look at the recent discussion around the post of keto.

I think it would be a great idea.

This forum is particularly toxic, as due to the apparent audience here on Lemmy, any topics relating to veganism get brigaded and no real discussion can be had.

Lemmy is to reddit what mastodon is to twitter essentially.

I don’t think this one will work.

Animalism is already the name for a philosophical position, and a set of religious beliefs.

I think it would be confusing, although I do appreciate the attempt to re-centre.

I suggest on the other hand we insist that people who claim they are vegan without any ethical consideration for animals, be called plant-based, as a way to prevent dilution of the term and goals of the movement.

This is a common question. I think this video summarises the backyard egg question quite nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFz99OT18k