But the majority of us loves our animals

And when the milk production drops, the vast majority of dairy cows get their throat slit and their bodies sold for profit. I surely wouldn’t treat those that I love that way, but I guess animal farmers just have a very different concept of “loving animals” compared to people who have pets, for example.

Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides

What makes you think that? Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals, for example?

I wouldn’t say they’re equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn’t as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.

That’s probably because you criticized their behavior (in a rather provocative way), which is often perceived as hostile and leads to downvotes.

Haven’t you been told that we don’t talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn’t lead to anything bad in history, so it’s not at all problematic.

Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!

I’d be very interested in the source for this…

America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html

The emissions of the middle class are also a huge problem and will have to drop to 0 as well.

BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don’t even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.

It’s like saying “As long as hitmans exist, I won’t give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes.” As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won’t be able to fix anything.

Much worse for who?

My point is: if police were completely abolished, conservatives and the far right would feel very unsafe and immediately form militias that enforce their values. That would be much worse for everyone who doesn’t share their values, of course.

I get that in many countries, police is badly regulated and you might say that this wouldn’t actually change much, but I’d rather seek more accountability for police, compared to a complete abolishion, leaving a power vaccum that’ll be filled by right wing militias with zero accountability.

Divesting seems good to me though, much of the police is certainly overfunded (due to law and order populism) and does useless shit (like the war on drugs), while education, social workers and programs against poverty are severely underfunded. Changing this would surely help a lot with crime reduction and other issues.

Thanks for the links by the way, I will look more into them when I have more time to see if my concerns regarding abolishion are addressed.

So what’s the alternative to police? Just getting rid of them would just lead to militias taking their place which would be much worse.

The neat thing is, you can add stuff like range checks and logging for getters and setters without changing every call. Separation of concerns is also vital in larger projects.