World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I've never understood thy people are so obsessed telling others that they should not eat dog meat while mjnching on a burger with crispy bacon and chicken nuggets.
If a vegan does it then I get it, but you are not a better person because you arbitrarily chose not to eat some specific meat, but have no problem with cruelty when it comes to other species.
I'm a vegan, but one argument specifically against allowing dog meat trade is that it often encourages stealing companion animals (aka pets) to make a quick buck. Sometimes they're held ransom and people have to pay the thieves to keep a member of their family from being killed and eaten. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Also, dogs were bred specifically to live alongside humans, to form bonds with us. To do that to any organism and then treat it like livestock is a special kind of monstrous.
So I'm in favor of drawing as many lines as possible when it comes to animal consumption of any kind. And then, if the situation makes you uncomfortable about some of the other lines you've drawn around cows, pigs, or chickens, then you analyzing those in more depth too is also a win in my book.
Nuanced take. 👍
thats just blackmail it has nothing to do with commercializing dog meat... that stuff is already illegal
My point is that it happens more frequently in places where dog meat is frequently consumed.
This is what I was talking about a vegan will have coherent arguments because they have been thinking about it.
Coherent indeed. Something about dog being held ransom so eating dog is bad?!
It makes no sense to ban the consumption of dogs simply because you are afraid of dog thieves. Do you ban driving a car because some people steal a car?
Nothing in this world is completely beneficial, but you can't ban everything.
No, but I did actually see a used bike store get shut down because too many stolen bikes were finding their way there. Sometimes to end a practice you have to go downstream and destroy the market for that thing. There’s no market for vehicular deaths - they just happen.
But it still makes no sense to ban it nationwide or worldwide, or to forbid it by law.
Stealing a car takes way more effort than kidnapping a pet. I'd also bet that people have way more personal attachment to pets than cars because pets are beings with emotions and cars are not.
What about windows? Should we ban that as they are easy for thieves to break?
Whether you have more personal attachment to a car, a pet or anything else is a completely personal thing, everyone should have their choice.
Almost nobody is attached to their windows. Most people treat pets as family members.
If people stealing pets to consume them is a huge problem, then it makes sense to ban the consumption of pets because the benefits of the law outweigh the drawbacks on a society. People who eat dogs ""ethically"" can easily move on to other animals, and the people who continue to consume stolen pets can be punished more harshly, causing fewer people to steal pets. That law would be a net win because the good it does for pet owners vastly outweighs the bad it does for dog consumers.
Why don't you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest? Or just ignore the interests of the minorities? Apparently, the good outweighs the bad based on your calculation.
We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.
The US used to do that. It didn't end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There's a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.
99％ percent of people can be much richer if we share the 0.1% richest people. This never happened. Besides, do you believe Robin Hood is allowed by law in modern society?
Do you think what China does to Uyghurs, and what Russia does to LGBT is justified? Apparently, they believe the good outweighs the bad, only at the cost of a few people.
The CCP's interests don't always align with the wellbeing of Chinese people. The interests of Russia's elite are even more divorced from the will of Russians.
You're bringing up counterexamples that I literally already refuted with previous examples. Slavery existed in the colonial US. The founding fathers put an end date on slavery because they knew it was a plague on society. People later on extended that date. Tensions rose until a civil war broke out. African Americans had more rights but weren't equal. Unrest rose until lawmakers gave them more rights. Similar thing with women.
Where in that paragraph do I state that genocide is good? Where do I support exploitation?
Who determines whose interest is bigger? If you think you can determine that, how are you different from the CCP or the Russian elite? If you can't, why do you say the interest of those who attach their feelings to a car, a window or a pig is not as important as those who attach their feelings to a dog?
If you banned driving cars, there just wouldn't be any cars around. That analogy has little to do with dogs. What is it about a ban that makes no sense to you?
You can replace cars with anything else and it still makes no sense. It's no one else but the thieves who should take the consequences.
We ban things we want less of. More eating dogs means a bigger market for all dog meat, which means a bigger market for theft. I want less of that.
People don't steal things that no one wants to buy.
I'm talking about the side effects of fostering a culture where eating a non-livestock animal is ok. My argument is that this kind of culture is pointlessly cruel to an animal that we've explicitly bred to be a companion.
One element of discouraging a culture is government action, a ban (coercion). I argue this is a necessary step in ending a cruel practice.
The other is cultural compliance (people behaving in a certain way regardless of the presence of law enforcement officials). I argue this is a necessary step as well, by way of education and improving access to alternatives.
The analogy would not be to ban driving cars, but ban the resale of cars. The incentive for theft is the value; if you remove the value, then there is less incentive to steal it.
So to answer this hypothetical question, should we ban the resale of cars? No, because the owner can be insured for the monetary value of their stolen vehicle. What is the monetary value of a pet? I don't believe this can be quantified.
Many people like their cars just like the way you like your pets. They should be treated equally.
This debate sure took an unexpected turn.
Yeah I personally wouldn't be comfortable eating dog meat but I do eat meat so I realise I have no moral high ground. In reality if you have a problem with this as a meat eater it should make you question your own choices if anything.
When I asked a vegan about her choice she asked me if I would eat my pet. I must admit the biggest thought in my mind was that it wouldn’t taste good, so no. I’m not sure if I could raise a livestock animal and then eat it. Possibly, but probably not since they get slaughtered early in their lives. So I guess I’m a hypocrite just like most people, taking shelter in out-of-sight, out-of-mind.
Including humans.
It keeps some people from having children who really shouldn’t have children. So it has its uses.
It’s because most people don’t know a cow or chicken. If they did, things might be different. In fact I remember seeing Ira Glass speak and he recounted how he spent some time at a retreat where chickens roamed free, and after having the time and opportunity to observe that they think and feel and have different personalities, he became a vegetarian.
I think you are probably right. For me it's kind of the opposite but still consistent. When I was a child we had many different animals and I had names for many of them including the sheep Bartek which me and my sister would ride often. In the end we would eat all those animals (but not the dogs or cats). So I've been friends with other animals than dogs, I'd even say they were better friends then the dogs I had because I have a hard time remembering the dogs names.
Yet again, another person blinded by the culture they are raised in. You are no better than a dog eater.
I think you are misunderstanding something, I am a dog eater.
Proud psychopath is proud to be a psychopath, whoda thunk it.
🤦♂️
Imagine you, coming into a thread about banning eating dogs and proudly announcing you eat dog then trying to act like it's others who can't read the room..
Doubt it. people had chicken roaming free in their backyard for millennia and never had an issue. One bloke observing chicken free and turning vegetarian is hardly an explanation.
factory farms play a large role in people's unease to buy meat from an industrial supplier.
I think its less about empathizing with animals and more about understanding the casual brutality of guys in suits.
Agreed, I was actually having a discussion where I mentioned certain parts of China and Korea eating dog- and a girl got mad at me saying it was a myth and I was being racist. 1. It's not a myth, I've seen it. 2. I wasn't condemning it, you're the one saying it's bad not me.
I'm not a dog person, but I gave a cat. The idea of cats being farmed and eaten isn't pleasant for me. I don't think that makes me morally superior to someone who eats cats, but it does mean I'd prefer it not happen anywhere near me.
Hypocrisy and racism.
Do you mean racism against cows or chickens?
That would be real racism, but I mean racism against brown people.
Who are the brown people in this context?
deez
The West fetishizes dogs.
Pussies too
It's not about arbitrary choices; it's about cultural perspectives. Dogs are often seen as companions, and advocating against eating them is rooted in that sentiment. Just as you might find it odd to eat a pet you've grown up with, some feel the same about dogs. It's about empathy and cultural values, not just personal dietary choices.
Nobody eats their pets. The dogs are bred for meet in farms like any other animal. People have pigs as pets and don't eat them, but they don't tell other people to not eat pigs, that's my point.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
People have pigs as pets
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.