Peacepath

Excuse me, of course all christians do not behave exactly as the bible says. On that point either. They are also told to do not kill nor rape, and some do it anyway, so even if they are told to blame those who speak up, some disobey and support them instead.

Yet most of them behave according to the principles they have learnt, most of the time. And when a scandal that doesn’t conrcern them directly spread in the news, it usually iritate them, and their position on the topic usually starts against those who speak up.

Christians must condamn rapists toward their god, but support and defend them toward society. For them accusing someone of having comit a rape is wrong and bad:

Matthew 18:6–7

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Luke 17:1–2

1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. 

For christians, the one victim of rape have the duty to shut up, and let society live in peace without knowing about it. And them denying the victime’s claim is the consequence of their faith.

Of course, christian faith isn’t the only cause, but in western society, we won’t get progress against rape without get rid of this poison.

Just a quick meaningless poll, which of you feel like their gouvernment is clearly less dumb and hallucinating than AI? (and where is this great land of yours?)

I think the previous time was the yellow vest movment (gilets jaunes) ; and the gouvernment got saved by Covid…

Most of those who have one don’t plan to have an other one? Ok, but is that supposed to be weird?

If they follow principles without critical thinking, then yes they have a faith and transform their movement into a religion. Yet Lenin’s principles are to call for critics, to evaluate situations rationally and to reject dogmatism. So following this principles dogmatically is a bit ironic…

Yet I haven’t met anyone claiming being a vanguard yet, or they haven’t told me much about their view on Lenin’s thoughts.

Who do you mean by they? And can you develop?

A philosophy isn’t a religion. You need to think philosophy by yourself, and not just one school of philosophy, since each of them have a point of view that could help you. I also think each of this school can be monstruous and misleading if you follow blindly its principles ; but each may help you to think each situation by yourself more efficiently.

Let’s take utilitarianism, maximizing the good. In many situations it applies smoothly. For the trolley track problem an utilitarian easily sacrify the one lonely to save the 5. Yet if you change the problem as: you are in an hospital and 5 patients need a different organ for transplantation ; an healthy universal donor kid is in a room waiting for a minor broken leg ; do you kill the kid to save the 5? Utilitarian principles should still say yes, but you may feel that in that case applying them would be wrong.

Those who would have faith in the utilitarianism, and apply it as a religion, may not see the problem. Of course, some may have both faith and some doubts. But I think they would think better if they think by themselves, using different philosophical principles, and without an authority to share the responsability of their decisions.

I don’t think I understand. Do you mean we need a religion to counter capitalism?

Religions are always serving the ones in power, some times they may set new rulers, but then they serve the new rulers…

And no rulers will be good if it is with a protection that pass all to them and protect them.

So I think rationality and education are more likely to be the solution than any religion (even in those not existing yet).

Please don’t… if it is a religion, it involve irrational beliefs that will be armful at some point. To protect the planet we need to know what is good for it, and be abble to find out that some of our knowledges/beliefs are wrong. To find out we were wrong, we need to be rational ; and that require to reject faith.

They are the powerful people, and they know why they don’t want to be kept accountable.

My guess is we will see some less convenient models, that gives better result but a “weird” way ; and far more very convenient models, easy to use, but that generate advertisings as a result (maybe even with promo codes!)…

Remember how internet search have evolved, how youtube has became, how everything went when finance guys decided it was time for harvest…

Now look at this new field, see how they grow it… what are the odds their plan is to harvest it at some point?

We are not yet at the point LLM are so dependent on advertising and “partnerships” that they are totally biased in favor of specific brands… not yet…

Take a time to anticipate how the actual state will soon be regreted…

It seems close to a zeugma (or syllepsis?). When you apply some part of a sentence to two others with different meanings…

As in the sentence:

“He took the country in ostage and a bullet in the head.”

(Where “to take” is used with differents of its meaning).

Yet, I am not sure, the figure here is a bit different…

In my understanding, and being myself among the “not manly enough”, the one like us grow mostly in two kinds: those who mask masculinity well enough, and those who don’t.

Yet all those who mask it are affraid of us because they could fail their masking around us. And they hate us because we found a way to make it without spending a lot of energy in masking. It is not something they know nor do willingly.

I have tried to mask, instinctively, and because society was waiting it from me. You probably tried too. It is far from easy and a constant pointless effort. It was rejecting our real self while seeking to make ourself accepted… And I think putting it like this makes obvious that those who success at masking need to reject us to keep up their mask: if they begin to accept us, it would be too difficult for them to reject their real selves hard enough.

Also, you may recognize genuinely masculine men at the fact they aren’t scared by feminine men nor gay men around them.

For sugar, it seems to be more effective than cocain if you want to make some food addictive…

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000698

Also it had started prior to that, the “mad cow” has been a huge trigger here. Not only it has forced to reconsider the things done by industrial farms (like “may it is not nice to feed cows with flour made of dead animals”) ; but also it has pushed consumers to avoid low cost meat and accept to pay more for some secure meat from good farms. Without big surprises, when the focus is made on quality rather than on cost reduction, the quality is better. That made more demand for both quality and safety, and so for better farming. In the same time, farmers were also willing to go for better practices, for many of them ; industrial practice were reducing their land’s quality, they could not be proud of their doing, and the cost reduction logic was also pushing on their selling prices making it hard for them to make a living of their production. So both producers and consumers easily agreed to rise quality even if it rises prices.

Low quality at low price still exists here, but some even try to pretend to do not be that low thanks to “quality labels”…

Yet if you ask to those meat eaters who claim they really love meat, most will also tell you they even prefer hunt animal’s meat. And it should soon be obvious for them that the fact an animal had a real life (eat its natural food, at will but without excess, and has a natural space to evolve in, with enough space) makes a better quality of meat. Most of them should easily admit that they do not really want to eat bad quality meat, especially not with health risks for themselves. The fact that it makes agriculture substainable for future generations, that it may rise their pride at supporting good and local farmers, and that it is better on a moral point of view are just bonus on top of it.

More recently, it became clear that we (european) eat too much meat for our health. It increased the desire to reduce the quantity and rise again the quality. The trend is at trying to find producers selling directly to consumers, to pay farmers more while not paying supermarkets margin, but also because so we can see the farm. The idea being that if we prefer to eat the products of those farmer proud of their practices.

Also, if we accept to live in little homes, to move to few, and to eat whatever cheap premade food home delivered, would we not be putting ourself in living conditions weirdly similar to animals in industrial farms? Not yet the exact same, sure, ours is still far better… but I think we should consider respecting ourself better than we actually do, to be less productive, less cost effective, and to give more time to our needs of walking in natural environments, and preparing real food from scratch.

I guess I understand, even if in my view the fight against consumerism and (the linked) productivism seem to be more effective. But I live in a place where ethical rising is turning into a norm, while industrial farming is regarded as a very low quality ; and may it shapes my point of view…

It seems we at the very least agree that industrialization of agriculture comes with an environmental cost which is too high (and probably not substainable on the long run).

Also, we seem to agree to do not let farm animals survive by selselves in the wild, but keep some human rise some (in good conditions).

But so, I am not that sure on what we disagree. I would guess that vegans in your place may allow rising animals? Here, they had many movements to free some farm animals from their fields claiming it is better for them to die early and free than to live in slavery… While I see the beauty of the aim, I find the consequences scary.

I think we don’t have the same thing in mind behind the concept of a “conventional farm”. You seem to have in mind something I would call industrialized, while I have in mind something you may call traditional.

For your aliens story, if you want to make it match our relationship with farm animals, you have to let them first breed humans into races that are dedicated to some of their needs so they specialize us. For thousands of years they should not care about how we would survive without them, but make some specialized for our meat, some for our hair, some for our milk, some for what ever matter to them but has no chance to help us in any way. And after thousands of years of total alienation of those of our kind, some would suggest to keep industrialize their process, some would suggest to release us in some corner of wild they may let us (but they don’t know which yet) and some would suggest to keep take care of us but in a better way. The second’s wish is very beautiful, but has great chances to leed to our extinction if we aren’t able to take care of ourselves anymore. The third’s wish is the one in which we would have a chance to gain back an existence as animals without race, without a specialization nor optimization to serve others ; as animals able to live for ourselves. Choice would not be ours, but does the second really seems obviously better to you?