Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look "cute", and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages ("oh, but my child loves his cage") when they don't need hardwired unconditional lopsided "love" to feed their narcissism.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54433 readers
288 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don't know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don't know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who's not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn't convince you if you heard it.
It's hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even "unobtrusive" ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I'll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I'm all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
Not having kids because of climate change is stupid. You are leaving the world in the hands of people who care less than you.
Lemmy.world holding such a prevalent place in the Lemmy/Kbin part of the Fediverse makes it a major single point of failure.
They should still be the newcomers instance, but communities and users should migrate to other instances to increase the resilience of the Fediverse.
We don't need more pronouns. We need less of them.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is βhΓ€nβ and itβs gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and youβre still called βhΓ€nβ. You can identify as anything you like and "hΓ€n" already includes you.
That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they're impossible to appease.
Wouldn't be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.
Only people who love kids and take care of them properly should have babies. Not all people deserve to have kids!!
Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don't need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.
Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They're dumb, and you only need bi
If we're splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.
Also, there is some need for a fourth "none of the above" label...
Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesnβt necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.
Yes it does. Read the bisexual manifesto.
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?
Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn't a decision that I find ethical in any way.
Eugenics sounds really cool. Not the mandatory sterilisation style, but breeding superhumans? Don't pretend that wouldn't be cool.
Cats are shit ass animals
Being fat is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against big people.
I used to be fat (250ish lbs (110ish kg) at 5'8"ish (172ish cm)), and as much as I would like to blame my shit on anything else, the person feeding me, the person sitting at the computer for hours, the person actively avoiding all physical activity was me and no one else. After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.
I'm aware of my bias, and I make every active effort to counter it in my actual dealings with bigger people. Especially because there are certain circumstances, however rarely, where it may not actually be their fault. But I'd be lying if I said my initial impression was anything except "God, what a lazy, fat fuck."
Edit: Added metric units
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately and your comment is interesting. Your first sentence is definitely phrased in a more controversial way than the rest of your comment, but I can't help seeing it as very similar to "Being depressed is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against depressed people." Is that an unfair comparison?
I know that treating fatness/obesity as a disease is kinda controversial but I feel like folks give people dealing with mental health a lot more grace than people dealing with health issues related to being fat. I've also heard that for some people they can be perfectly healthy at a higher weight (though this is clearly not the case for many fat people who are seeing health impacts). I guess I'm assuming that a lot of fat people would potentially like to be less so, but can't (for any number of reasons) quite get there. This seems really similar for me to people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc who want to change things but keep falling back into the problem.
I guess my question is do you have bias against people who can't escape other bad cycles like mental health or even stuff like alcoholism? Or is it more just that you think it's fair to judge people without the discipline/willpower to get out of a state they didn't want to be in, like you did.
I totally get that, same here.
But ultimately you can't just blame people. There is literally an entire industry trying to sell you cheap carbs and fat. Down to the sound a bag of chips makes when you open it (this is not a joke).
So on one hand you have evolution, your body still being stuck in the past where food was scarce. On the other hand you have too much food and it's highly engineered to be addicting on purpose.
It's no surprise most people are going to lose that challenge.