this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16963 readers
2675 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've had an unreasonable number of arguments against people who seemed to think animal was a synonym for mammal. Thankfully, we're now in an era where you can look it up and show them now mobile data is cheap, so it's become a winnable argument.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except they still don't care, and resent you for edumacating them. Whatever you say, they "win". Welcome to the post -information age.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I rarely judge someone for ignorance unless it is wilful. I pretty harshly judge people who cannot assimilate new information. Over time I think I might be evolving from INTP->INTJ as I age. I used to have more patience and would try to encourage people to learn and adjust.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 points 11 months ago

I get you - and am the same. I hold little to nothing against someone unable to learn... but that's not what I am talking about. Imagine someone with an IQ of 50, who decides to pass themselves off as a doctor - you go in for brain surgery and, whoopsie, you get your event taken care of "at a reduced price". Nobody blames someone who is authentically stupid - and if that sounds bad, note that I include myself first among that category:-) - until and unless they step up and decide to become a LEADER. The latter carries with it a societal obligation to do better, than us mere peasants.

Put another way, if you are going to perform literal and actual and fully physical violence against an establishment such as the government of the United States of America (i.e. becoming one who acts rather than being acted upon), then you might want to start with actually reading the document that you are about to overthrow. It does no good to sleep with it under your pillow - you need to pull it out and actually READ it for it to do any good! Although many who were there have self-admitted that they have not in fact read it, even so much as once.

Likewise, more people died in the USA from the recent pandemic than all wars combined. Much of that was preventable, and quite frankly we don't even (nor will ever) know precisely how many are directly attributable to that, b/c those stats were deliberately fudged and forbidden to be counted. The same with school shootings - we counted at one point that there were more "mass events" (involving 5+ people) than there were calendar years, but the government is specifically prohibited from collecting this data, so once again we'll never truly know the extent, only lower-bound estimates (which are already shockingly high). Also people have already died from the ham-handed prevention of "abortion", that somehow includes cancerous masses, dead fetuses (from natural miscarriages) with necrotic tissue rotting away (but can't remove either b/c that could be considered an "abortion"), ectopic "pregnancies", and other life-threatening situations, which are nowhere close to the medical definition of "abortion", yet to the lawmakers (some of whom claim that babies cannot be produced from a rape - I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP - b/c "God has a way of shutting that whole thing down there in the case of rape") are too unintelligent to understand anything at all about what is going on.

However, nobody is that stupid, as to e.g. see Trump wear a mask, then turn around and claim to others that he does not wear masks. We have long ago crossed that line, from "stupidity" to "obstinacy". This is cognitive dissonance, yes likely imposed upon people from others (e.g. Putin), but also willfully held onto by many.

And here is proof: a video by Kurzegatcht that is only 11-minutes long that explains why people should take the vaccine. This is VERY understandable. Anyone who watches this would INSTANTLY understand the situation fully - and it's only 11-minutes long, so for something that could save a life, and possibly that of every one of your family members - is not too much to ask. And yet... people did not do it.

Moreover, much of the subject matters involved in all of what I mentioned above don't even need a video of even 1 minute to explain - e.g. to say that "kids getting shot in schools all across the nation" is... what is is again? good? no wait, bad, yeah, that's it, that's a bad thing!... right?!

That's not stupidity - that's stubbornness.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Honey can be vegan. I have a friend who keeps endangered bees and as an unintended side effect of fostering their growth has honey that she has to give away because she doesn’t want it

[–] ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Isn't that vegetarian, not vegan though?

[–] Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Genuine question, I would like to know if there is a reason. Why doesn't she just let the bees keep it?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I believe it’s to encourage them to increase numbers, but I haven’t discussed that with her. She’s the type of nerd I know probably has a good reason so I never asked

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I feel like bees are a bit of a grey area. We're not eating them, we're kind of like landlords that give them a nice place to stay and they pay rent in honey. I'm not vegan so I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for bee stuff.

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with my landlord harvesting my vomit as rent.

"I'm eating it, I promise it's not a sex thing."

[–] Chev@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

As long as we canot ask them, if it's ok if we take their honey (consent), it's not vegan. For an counter example, it's fairly easy to get consent from a dog to touch them. Most people are able to tell if they are fine or not.

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

So my wife went vegan for a bit and the logic is basically any living thing we take advantage of or make their lives more of a labor. So eggs, honey, milk aren't vegan because companies put those animals in situations they normally wouldn't be in in the wild to take advantage and harvest products from them.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, some vegans draw the line at the animal kingdom. (Plants, algae, mushrooms - these are all living things as well, but one has to eat something.) Some vegans I know do eat honey though. It depends on what feels like animal exploitation to the person.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Eh, I doubt most people care about being vegan for the sake of being vegan, but as has been said, honey bees are bad for pollinators, so from a moral viewpoint, you get to the same conclusion.

Ultimately, though, honey isn't hard to give up. Certainly nothing that I felt was worth contemplating whether it's grey area or not.
At best, it's annoying, because the weirdest products will have honey added. One time, I accidentally bought pickles with honey, and they were fucking disgusting.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Best friend's a vegan who raises bees. He doesn't clip wings or use smoke. From what I gather he basically just maintains their boxes, feeds them sugar when it's too cold for em, and collects honey when it's time. Someone is about to come along and say "he's not a vegan. Sounds like a vegetarian" and then I'm going to think "sounds like you're gatekeeping a lifestyle like it's a religion, and not even all vegans who don't use honey agree on whether or not a vegan can use honey" but I won't, because I don't wanna get wrapped up in the nonsense.

But either way, yes, some vegans do use honey. And some, like that theoretical commenter, don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Beekeeping family here: who the fuck clips bee wings?

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net -1 points 11 months ago

Iunno, never personally seen it. Just heard about it online when I first started looking into beekeeping (which I ultimately did not take up).

Still interested in doing it (the keeping not the clipping), if you have any advice on getting started for someone with like 18 dollars between paydays. Lol

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I find vegan intellect fascinating. I love hearing their responses to my epistomology. They all make it up as they go along. It's very similar to religious beliefs in the way it is personal. Each has their own set beliefs on where to draw the line of what is vegan and what is not.

My personal understanding of the world is that plants aren't so different from animals that they can be classified separately from other food sources. For example, how much different is r-selected reproduction from a fruiting plant. Plants react differently to different colors of light and so do we.

It helps to understand the goal of a vegan. The extent to which we are tied to every living thing on Earth means that many vegans have set impossible goals.

Just fascinating.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's easy to judge down from that high horse of i-dont-care.

I'm no vegan (nor vegetarian), but the mission of an animal-rights-activist (that is also logically vegan in consequence) is surely to minimize any harm (s)he knows of. It's very simple. The limits of a dietary or fashin-trendy vegan is not so clear. As they usually don't really have spent a lot of time reflecting about it, but just follow some basic idea they've found somewhere. And maybe try to "adapt" it a lil.

Also your plant-argument was had like 30yrs ago already. Makes you sound super-intelligent, having figured out their major flaw all on your own :-)

The goal is not impossible. The goal is (or probably just should be) to minimize suffering if its existence is not unbeknownst to us. That's really a very basic logic that doesn't require much computing power.

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

There was no tone of judgement in my response. I hope that's not what you got from it. I said I find it fascinating the way they think. This is not limited to vegans but it is easier to get someone to talk about this than other beliefs.

I have no doubt that minimizing suffering is the higher goal. I meant that if their goal is to to use no food or product that involves using animals (within their personal definition) that they will find nothing in this world that is without impact from or to animals. That's what makes it impossible.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True to that. Easier to talk with people about veganism than their religion :-)

I get your sense of logic, but it's inherently flawed. So you're saying, if there's no way to 100% an ethic, it's better to just totally skip it? Of course you can't 100% live in this world without somehow touching an animals life by some degree. But it's about what one CAN do. The more one knows about this world, the more one could avoid. Ignorance is bliss, the evil I don't know is the evil I must not fight. But the moment I get knowledge of unjust X, I can do my best do avoid unjust X to the best of my abilities. Not even judgin in, us just being flawed humans. If I do 99% of everything I know right, and just fucked up the 1%. Am I still a bad person and suck at my ethics?

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I was unaware that my message implied a 100% requirement. That part of the comment was meant to be about how I see them trying to define the line between what is vegan and what isn't. I see now how this is being interpreted and it is my fault for being unclear.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I feel so kindred with the way you see things. You're making an observation and you're curious about the "why" of everything. I feel people often read my similar interest in a subculture as critical. Kind of like how bluntness can be perceived as rude, I guess. Do you ever have a similar response happen to you?

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Just look at the other responses to my comments.

In real life it can be better or worse. Some of the closest people in my life get immediately defensive. It's sometimes easier to talk with strangers. More often than not, I will find a passion point that is the limit of conversation. At those times I just listen as much as possible. How much I engage depends on how they rect to my questions.

[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Reacting to stimuli like the colour of light is irrelevant. My phone camera would fall into the same category, then. A light switch reacts to getting pressed and turns on a light, it's reacting to a stimulus.

What matters is sentience, which plants cannot possess, since they don't have a central nervous system. And even if they did, a diet that includes meat takes more plants, since those animals have to be fed plants in order to raise them.

They all make it up as they go along. It's very similar to religious beliefs in the way it is personal. Each has their own set beliefs on where to draw the line of what is vegan and what is not

The extent to which we are tied to every living thing on Earth means that many vegans have set impossible goals.

Regarding these two, is this any different from human rights? Where people draw the line regarding slave labour, child labour, which type of humans they care about (considering racism, homophobia, trans phobia, ableism etc). I'm sure lots of people have impossible goals regarding human rights, but working to get as close to those as possible is still sensible.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

The response to light color does not stand on its own. That is merely one parallel from many. It is true plants do not have a nervous system like animals, but they do have similar responses to stimuli. Parallels can be drawn to sight, sound/touch and smell/taste.

Sentience is another topic that is defined subjectively. From context it is clear you make a central nervous system a foundational requirement. I could also apply this to technology, so I would need clarification from you to understand what it means to you. I do not hold to a personal definition for sentience because I have found neither a universal nor scientific understanding of the idea.

As for the last paragraph: yup.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Veganism has and always will be just dogma. I find it quite annoying how individuals can so freely push their moral philosophy onto others. Veganism should always be a personal philosophy.

Also, there are now many vegans (considered bottom-up vegans) taking the communist route and basically advocating for revolutions in order to cease animal food production.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I have conversed with quite a few vegans and none of them have pushed their morals on others. Some of them have been very upfront about their veganism. I am wondering where you are that you see vegans being so revolutionary.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

ethical vegans (and not people who eat plant-based for nutritional reasons, and often get conflated with people doing it for ethics reasons) generally agree on one very simple rule:

To reduce, as much as possible, the suffering inflicted upon animals.

That's it.

Where that line is drawn of course depends on your personal circumstances. Some people require life-saving medicine that includes animal products, and are generally still considered vegan.

I'd like to see what about this confuses you and your epistomology [sic, and that word doesn't mean what you think it means]

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

I am not confused. I am curious and fascinated on how people come to their conclusions. I know exactly what epistomology means. I have used it for conversations with many vegans about their choices as well as on other personally held beliefs. I could be a lot better at it but it has helped me show that I am curious and respectful.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm curious, how do you use a branch of philosophy, that's concerned with the abstract theory of knowledge and the limits of human reasoning, in conversations?

it's epistemology, btw

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Thank you for the correction. It can be applied in the Socratic method. I ask questions to understand someone's position and continue into how they came to those conclusions. At no point do I pressure for answers though. The idea is just to keep the person talking so you can understand their poimt of view to the best of your ability. It has a side effect of healthy personal reflection for all parties involved.

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I've always wondered if vegetables from a farm that uses horse-drawn tills instead of tractors would be vegan... It's a real question, but everyone I ask thinks that I'm trolling.

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

I'd say no because horses can't consent to being used for this. Horse riding is generally not considered vegan either

[–] wh0_cares@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 11 months ago

Oooooooh, even using tractors could be considered non-vegan, if they're powered by fossil fuels, then they're powered from the remains of dinosaurs, which were very much animals

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Or animal manure, or pesticides

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

I mean vegans want veganic produce the most. But it’s not widespread enough to be able to only eat that. It’s not about being perfect but doing what you can.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Each vegan will have their own answer. If you are truly curious, and a vegan is sharing their mindset with you, ask them.