speciesism is necessary for correct action.
Edit:
from the wikipedia page on speciesism:
Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.
"Correct" as defined by human supremacists. Yuck.
as defined by a professional ethicist.
I never said the kicking and screaming would have been successful. I'm just trying to explain why I think so many people went quietly, and pointing out that most people, when faced with the prospect that their entire family, all their friends, and they themselves face imminent death if they do nothing will tend to do something, regardless of whether it's likely to succeed.
I'm not saying they "should have" done anything specific. I'm pointing out that pretty much the only explanation for why they went as quietly as they did was that they didn't know what was coming. People that are knowingly faced with the imminent murder of their family will not typically stand idly and watch.
Also, keep in mind that there are fates worse than a quick painless death in the gas chambers. And the Nazis very much used those as well.
You have one specific meat industry largely organized around killing baby animals.
why should baby animals matter more than any other? one that's had longer to live and develop relationships surely is worse to be led to slaughter than one with hardly any understanding of the world and their place in it.
I assumed the adults were a lot bigger.
I think ypu are falling for the trap of blaming the other victims. No matter how people voted, the person doing the evil is still who needs to be blamed. Well him, and the system that let him get there in the first place.
Your anger is justified, but directing it at people you have never met, and most of whichs vote made no difference (lot of blue state voters didn't vote, but the state still went blue) is only going to cause more people to be disillusioned and not vote.
Two non nukes per city would be barely a scratch. Maybe a few thousand people per city if you hit the most densly populated spot.
Look up what a Trident 2 D5 can do.
Everything I see talks about it being nuclear. So no source on what it can do with a non nuclear payload. But I feel confident it is less than MOAB. And that can't kill to many.
Not a lot. Growth slows down fast when an animal gets older.
So they are slaughtered at between 6 and 12 months, because that's the time where the growth slows down too much.
No point in having a 30% heavier animal if it takes 2x as long to get to that point.
Point being if they went nuclear, even the smallest ones would take a lot of people out. And what youâre reading is wrong. But letâs continue to split hairs.
Donât believe me. I donât really give a shit because I wonât be a part of any of it either way.
The difference between nukes and non nukes is splitting hairs? I think you mean atoms.
Totally, I didn't realize they grew so fast. And in my head a lamb is like a baby. Guess not really.
Yeah, it's like with the human term "child". A child is anything from birth until age 12 or so. There's quite a bit of a difference in that age range.
For sheep, a lamb is anything up to roughly a year.
In fact, sheep enter puberty at ~3-4 months, so a lamb will usually be slaughtered during puberty.
