You're talking about cancer breakthroughs like they're not politics. Cancer breakthroughs are political. The allocation of resources towards particular kinds of research and its payoff is a contentious subject. The breakthrough serves to justify money that has been spent on cancer research. Although critics may say that there's too much focus on cancer research when other illnesses are more widespread and more pressing. And for that matter, should we be putting more effort into limiting carcinogens in the first place instead of researching cures? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe I'd prefer the government subsidize induction stoves so that I don't have to inhale carcinogenic stove fumes and later get my cancer cured in a hospital. That sure sounds like less stress for the patient, and it has the side benefit of improving climate change. Ultimately cancer breakthroughs are a deeply political subject, with a lot of different conflicting opinions on the subject.
exocrinous
Okay how about this. I'll cede my right to complain about allergens, as long as I get to shove my fingers up your nose every time I see you. I mean, you're not literally dying, so it doesn't matter, right?
That's news. We already have a name for that kind of content, it's news. What do you want to use the word politics for when we already have the word news?
FiniteBanjo:
Floey is implying
Inherently? No, that's not needed to construct Floey's argument. Floey's argument requires only that the meat producing process be practically torturous. And it is. Most chickens are raised in quarters so cramped that they need to be debeaked so they won't peck each other to death from the stress.
It would be whataboutism if the purpose were to excuse this man's action by pointing to other examples. But I don't believe the person you're replying to intended that. I think they mean to say this man is awful, and so are carnists, which is not whataboutism.
The word politics is more useful to misogynist gamers and incels than it is to anyone else. You certainly weren't using it for anything productive. I believe we should make the word useless for everyone.
Of course, the first step is to accept that convincing people to be less evil, is more important than vanity and holding to the idea that you’re somehow better than them.
Of course I believe that. I believe the best way to convince people not to kill is to shame killers. It's nothing to do with my ego. It's not hypocrisy to want there to be less death in the world, and accusing me of letting children drown or wanting to be superior is not only silly, it's irrelevant to your own actions. It's just a mechanism for you to process your shame. You know killing is bad and you want an excuse. You think if you can change the subject to my actions and how I'm not Literally Superman, then you won't have to think about your actions. But tough nuts because we are not changing the subject. I proposed a truce. We won't say your actions are wrong if you don't kill animals. That way you don't have to deal with mean words, and the animals don't have to deal with murder. I daresay that approaches fairness. If you want to make the argument that mean words are incomparable to a life and the animals are getting a bloody good deal out of a truce, then yeah, I guess their lives are more important than your feelings, how bout that!
I agree. Burger King is an international business valued at 7 billion dollars with millions upon millions of dollars. I'm a regular person, and broke to boot. I'm never going to be able to do as much for veganism as Burger King, no matter how hard I try.