[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 15 points 9 months ago
[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 months ago

Embrace the paradox, humans are arguably the greatest rights violators in all forms of violence, but they are also the only beings capable of granting rights through moral agency. The paradox is also true of anthropocentric climate change, it's creator, but also it's only possible resolver. The environment only has instrumental value to conscious beings so it would miss the mark to assume the absence of humans is in anyone's (including animals) best interest.

Guess we should just try to get through each others thick skulls instead of being edgy :/

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago

For the love of God eat fiber and drink water. How hard is this?

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Quieter, less point's of failure, and in many cases taking up less space. I have compressed air for dust. In the consumer sphere and almost any enthusiast sphere, air cooling > > > water cooling

1
Only two things scare me (files.catbox.moe)
[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago

Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don't know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don't know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens ๐Ÿ˜ตโ€๐Ÿ’ซ

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it's fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.

If it's false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?

Your examples don't have victims, this one does.

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago

The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! โ˜๏ธ๐Ÿค“

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago

Imagine caring at all

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 years ago

Um sweaty dry beans are shelf stable for five years โ˜๏ธ๐Ÿค“

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 33 points 2 years ago

Part of me is okay with this not because I don't want green initiatives, but because it would be wasted on a state that will need a large population exodus. If we are thinking about climate change long term, we should not be encouraging people to be in or stay in Florida. Build the infrastructure elsewhere.

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

People should respond as if it is fixable, even if it is not. Any mitigation or reduction is positive. If you're gonna go out, go out swinging. Reject the status quo. Expect more from yourself and others.

And also go Vegan ๐Ÿค—

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Make your dreams come true! There are dozens of us Vegan couples! Dozens! The pool is small but someome tipping their toes in is ready to drag you under and not let go O_O

view more: next โ€บ

BonfireOvDreams

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago