agamemnonymous

Do you? "Thousands" is the word in question here

Keurigs are actually pretty convenient when you're only making one cup. The trick is to get one of the reusable filters and just use whatever coffee you like.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what your goal is: establishing your ethical superiority, or reducing the number of animals lost to the meat industry? The middle-ground approach saves more animal lives than calling omnivores "murderers".

If you haven't watched the Netflix series, it is also pretty great. The whole series is a master class in world building.

A large percentage of women actively prefer many of the behaviors we're describing as "toxic". The majority of my casual partners have explicitly requested, or discussed how attractive they find, borderline abusive behavior: physical aggression, jealousy, catcalling and infantalizing language, relentless pursuit, etc. My first girlfriend told me to be less respectful with her, and lost a lot of attraction toward me the first time I was emotionally vulnerable with her.

So a big problem is that while a vocal portion of women are telling men that certain gender norms are toxic and they need to stop, they're watching the women they're pursuing choose the men who exhibit this toxic behavior. At the end of the day, without any guidance from feminists, they have to choose between what the feminists tell them, and what the pick-up artist types tell them. The pick-up artists promise them romantic success, the feminists call them toxic for feeling entitled to romantic success.

With sexual/romantic success being the primary motivator for young men, is it really a surprise that they make the choices they make?

That's another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it's a stretch to call that belief.

This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by "believe in religion":

1. Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.

2. Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.

3. Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)

1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.

2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.

3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can "tune into" like a radio, then it stands to reason that "consciousness" permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.

Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I'm aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I'd love to consider it.

If you meant something else by "believe in religion", let me know.

They're good when they're crumbled as an ingredient or topping. As-is they're gross.

I play GURPS and my son is also named math

Without Biden’s unconditional support Israel would have to stop.

How did you come to that conclusion? Israel has their own arms production, and many current and potential allies who would step in.

Once again, I said none of that. Scroll up to verify I didn't call you out at any point.

This is a public forum, when you make a statement people are free to comment. You made a statement I disagreed with, and all I said was that the statement was questionable. All the rest of this "calling beliefs out" happened purely in your head. Feel how you wish about your choices, but don't implicate me in your projection.

Uh, you do know it's possible to focus on fruits, which are freely given, right? You volunteered your perspective in the first place, and you're the one throwing your hands up instead of finding an ethical diet. You're the one trying to justify your choices based on subjective distinction. You're the one calling yourself a hypocrite. All I said was that your absolute claim was questionable.

I eat, primarily, botanical fruits (which includes cucumbers, squash, and a surprising quantity of other vegetables freely given by plants for our consumption) as well as meat which would otherwise be thrown away. Once the animal is dead, it is far more respectful to consume it than let it be wasted. I typically buy meat on clearance, at the end of the night, on the expiration date.

I have no desire to "gotcha" people who sincerely want to make a better world, but hypocrites who call out others while justifying their own ethical blind spots are typically more interested in self-righteousness than actually improving the world.