416
‘Zombie deer disease’ epidemic spreads in Yellowstone as scientists raise fears it may jump to humans
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
416 points (98.4% liked)
News
23371 readers
4833 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it is. consent has nothing to do with exploitation.
This is nonsense. If I have a thing, and I give you that thing freely and of my own volition, you have not exploited me. If we're going to say that that's necessarily exploitation, then all transactions are exploitative, and nothing could be considered vegan except for growing your own vegetables in the wild. No, human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.
taking something to use it is the barest definition of exploitation.
Sure, it's the most braindead definition you can use, and it ignores the very concept of why vegans are vegan in the first place. Big "gender=sex is basic biology" energy here
the vegan society says "all forms of exploitation".
The vegan society also says
But wait, why would the Vegan Society advise breastfeeding if milk isn't vegan?
they also say that you only need to practice veganism in so far as it is practicable. recommending the people do the practicable thing instead of the vegan thing is perfectly in line with a vegan society's definition. that doesn't change whether it's exploitation.
When they say "all forms of exploitation," do you think they mean "exploitation in every form, be it for food, clothing, entertainment, etc.," or do you think they mean "exploitation by every conceivable definition?" Because the vegan society speaks and acts as if it is the former, and the latter is a semantic argument that's only ever made in bad faith.
So what do vegans mean when they say "exploitation?" Well, without a clear definition from them, we have to make inferences. Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable thanks to plant-based formulas, yet they don't recommend against it. Therefore, it must be the case that human milk, in the context of breastfeeding, is vegan, as if it weren't, they would necessarily recommend against it. That rules out any definition of "exploitation" that is as simple as "make use of," because if their definition were that simple, they would have to recommend against "making use of" human milk.
This leaves us with definitions that are more complex than simply "making use of." Every single applicable definition of "exploit" that's more complex than "make use of" involves something to do with unfairness, lack of consent, or some other inequality.
Now that we've established the fact that human-derived foods can be vegan (and we have established that as a fact), we can safely say that human meat can be vegan, as long as the individual consents, is not being unfairly treated, and is giving their flesh of their own volition. You were wrong. It's okay to be wrong, you can simply admit that your understanding was imperfect, and grow as an individual.
no, we havent
this is condescending. it is inappropriate conduct in this community.
The only rule you could argue this breaks is #1, be civil, and I think I was quite civil in that statement.
condescension is demeaning.
none of the definitions I've found mention consent or even allude to it.
this is impossible to know
I've amended it to be accurate. Would you like to argue against the proof I've laid out now?
they may disagree with your assessment of practicability of not breastfeeding
They would not. Plant-based formula is available. Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable. I was pretty sure you were just trolling, but now I'm certain of it.
according to whom? they don't say so
I don't believe you've ever encountered this argument before. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
unless there were some other carveout that allowed the exception.
this is only your interpretation of the facts. I've already given an equally supported interpretation. the only rational course is to suspend judgement until more is known.
too many commas there.
No human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.
My friend. If even PETA agrees that human milk is vegan, you can be damn sure that human milk is vegan.
your peta link is out of date. it says that the academy of nutrition and dietetics says that appropriately planned vegan diets are appropriated at all stages, but that paper has expired and is no longer a position of the academy.
My point was not that PETA supported breastfeeding based on a study they cited, my point was that PETA, an organization considered by many to be an extremist vegan organization, recommends breastfeeding.
I cannot fathom why I need to explain this to you. PETA hates every human activity that isn't vegan. PETA does not hate breastfeeding. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume via the transitive property that breastfeeding must be vegan, as it is a human activity that PETA does not hate. The exact same can be said for the vegan society link I provided in a different comment.
if Peter were an authority on what is vegan, then the rest of your claim would be true. since Peter is not an authority on what is vegan it's possible that their mistaken about their take on breastfeeding.
peta is not the authority on the meaning of veganism