If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
This is not true. The vast majority of farmed animals come from high intensity operations and the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally. This is one of those happy little lies people repeat to themselves without verifying because it provides them with a shred of moral license. They don’t really care whether it’s true or not and finding out it is false won’t change their behaviour, it’s a totally facile argument.
the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.
sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.
Where are you getting your information?
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock. That’s just the fact of the matter. It’s not conserving anything, rather it’s incredibly wasteful. Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
And again, you don’t really give a shit. It wouldn’t change your behaviour to discover you are mistaken, it’s a disingenuous argument. It’s sophistry.
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.
this is a lie
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
this just isn’t true.
I find it difficult to respect the way we exist in society. Most of us in the west enjoy what we have because someone elsewhere is being exploited. The general pride and vanity we have is unjustified and we should be using that power for good instead. We are focused on the
rightwrong things.You could say that this opinion isn’t unpopular, but just try bringing it up in conversation. Many don’t want to know.
The purpose of government is to take care of the people. I’d rather pay more taxes to make sure my fellow men are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and cared for because it improves security for my loved ones.
It should also keep us from trying to exploit or attack each other
The question of ‘What is the purpose of government?’ is simultaneously deeply important to society and yet rarely, if ever, addressed in a useful context. I have watched people argue about multiple policies, speaking past each other the whole time, just because they had different baseline assumptions as to the purpose of government and couldn’t even see their opponents had a different definition.
The Beatles are highly overrated. I respect the impact they had, and I acknowledge that the music I like (metal) would not exist without them, but I’ll go out of my way to avoid listening to them.
It was easier to be a big fish in the pre-internet music pond. I would never said the Beatles are bad, they aren’t. But aside from understanding the historical significance, I would never ever put the Beatles on regularly.
Just as I don’t watch B&W films every night. Charlie Chaplin was great, for the time, just simpler than what I actually actually enjoy.
Everyone should have to retake the driving test (both written and practical) every five years. And if you don’t pass on the first try or are in a crash where you are found at fault, it should be bumped up to every year for the following five years.
People drive dangerously because they’ve forgotten rules, or rules have changed, or they’ve had a physical or cognitive decline. And yet we’re like “yep, you took a test once decades ago, good to go.”
Dangerous driving kills so many people.
I’m guessing they would do this if they could justify the cost to voters. I recall having to wait months for my driving test. Sadly, I have a feeling it’s easier to kick that problem (i.e. accidents) down to someone else’s department. But I’m totally with you. Yesterday I almost got ran over by someone that treated a stop sign like a yield sign.
Graveyards are a disgusting waste of space. Their existence communicates to society that many dead people are more entitled to space on this Earth than some living people will ever have.
It’s insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here “Eugenics”. Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren’t so “perfect” (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems…
your semantic understanding of eugenics doors not seem to understand why people opposed eugenics and eugenics policies.
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
Who decides who can pro-create? What is the criteria?
I don’t see a scenario where this works out well.
How tf does this shitty reply have 17 upvotes? How the fuck did 17 COMPLETE IDIOTS show that and though: “Hmmm… He is right!”
Like, hw stupid can you all be? Who’s going to decide? Obvious professionals who know of kids and have worked with them. Social workers, pedopsychiatrist, teachers, etc.
This isn’t even something new. This is how it’s done with adoption. You can’t all be so ignorant and dumb. I hate democracy because of idiots like you…
I laid out some bare minimums: knowledge about how to take care of and raise a healthy human child and the financial means to do so.
This is an extremely popular opinion among those who’ve not unpacked that what you’re describing is eugenics
It is not, at all, eugenics. Nothing in my unpopular opinion has anything to do with genetic traits
whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That’s eugenics
Lemmy is full of bad people
Lemmy is full of bad people
More hate than I ever encountered on Reddit.
I still like Lemmy better, but ugh, the hate–especially for people who have different political opinions that majority here–is icky.
But yo, haters: I ain’t going anywhere. So keep on all ya want. :)
No one really seems to talk about overpopulation as a real problem and it kind of freaks me out. Climate change, micro plastics, war, economy is all bad, but the amount of people that keep multiplying with no bother in the world is crazy. Factory farms are already out of control and it’s just gonna grow exponentially.
any policy you can implement to address “overpopulation” is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.
Most people on Lemmy aren’t as kind or open-minded as they like to appear. There’s plenty of hate here on this side of the aisle, but it gets excused because they believe they’re “on the correct side.”
tl;dr: You’re just as hateful and close-minded as the people you claim to be fighting. Same behavior, different colored hat.
Ah, the ol’ “I have shit opinions and people told me so”
Well, the thread is about “unpopular” opinions. Tho with the upvotes, I guess my opinion isn’t as unpopular as I thought! :)
Desktop computers are way better and more fun than using phone for browsing, wikipedia, news, and Lemmy
I rarely use my phone for anything other than texting. I like using my desktop computer to browse and post.
I’ve been reflecting on this a lot lately, especially after watching a video by an internet funny man I enjoy (Eddie Burback) about him locking his phone away for a month (not a feasible strategy for most people.)
I also enjoy pretty much anything online much more on the desktop. When things started pivoting to app-only it felt very weird at the time - the phone access was always the clunkier secondary backup nice-to-have.
That said, 80% of my browsing happens on my phone. It’s less fun and it’s more mindless, but that’s the truth. I think I’ll hit a point where I find my phone just too magnetic but as a dopamine crutch it’s cripplingly convenient.
I purposely avoid using my phone to browse. Unless it’s something like restaurant review or urgent news as I’m out. I try to stay present, enjoy my space, and tell myself that I can just wait to look it up when I get home.
When I 'm out and look around I see everyone just staring down at their screen. It’s annoying to see. So I decided not to be like that. Now I actually hear birds, feel breezes, take in sights and smells. And I take my time. For me pesonally, 100 percent improvement of life. I’m rarely ever in a bad mood now.
People even mention how I always seem in a good mood. It’s because I’m not doomscrolling on my phone all day (like most of Lemmy does)! lol
And when I get home and use desktop, I do fun things like create music, write novels, etc. Life is awesome without the 24-hour doom and gloom.
not necessarily more fun, but definitely much, much, much more usable and convenient
Fair point! Fun is def not the correct word I should have used. “Practical” is the better choice.
