nsrxn

it’s an actual scientist talking, who doesn’t seem to be making any outrageous claims, or anything you could call propaganda, no conclusions are drawn, so idk what the propaganda would even be for.

when did you last read the definitions of propaganda

which feature request is yours?

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues

submit a feature request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section

this is a gish gallop. which study are you citing? the 22 year old study (reference number 78)? which of the dozens of references did you actually read?

you can read the citations on that study and see that LCA studies cannot be combined

I showed my reasoning, and the evidence is in the citations of the study we are discussing, and their citations

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that animal agriculture is okay

of course not. but it is probably ok, regardless of whether there is ethical consumption under capitalism

part of the advantage of not eating animals is that it takes less plants to eat just plants, then it does to eat animals - since you have to feed those animals too

animals graze, and what crops they are fed are often crop-seconds or parts of plants that people can't (or won't) eat.

if you want to lose an argument about the validity of utilitarian ethics, I'll be happy to help you. if you want to keep throwing out red herrings, and you can stop making it personal, that's fine too

never ascribed you any motivations

anyone can read that you did

Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do?

they're the experts on ethics and logic, both of which you seem to think you have a firm grasp on. I'm pointing out that you are probably mistaken.

whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.

I'm following your lead. if you want to stick with your assertions about pleasure and suffering I'll be glad to eviscerate utilitarianism for you.