I think you are equating those with disruptive. Peaceful doesn’t necessarily mean non-disruptive. Peaceful and disruptive protests can certainly still make people in power sweat
Strikes are peaceful and disruptive
Shutting down freeways can be peaceful and disruptive
Boycotts are peaceful and can be disruptive
Sit-ins are peaceful and can be disruptive
etc.
Not that 3.5% is necessarily an iron-clad guarantee
Yes, there is no update on their website’s newsroom press releases is what I am saying. Last one was posted online a day before they tweeted this one
They did not post on their newsroom or anything yet as far as I could find, just their official social media accounts
LAPD posted a screenshot of the text originally. See the link in the body https://xcancel.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931538326600995262#m
This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used
This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here
Unfortunately this is far from a US only thing. It is worse in the US, but it’s still everywhere. Factory farming is rather high globally, including Canada where I’m going to assume you are from based on your instance
It’s estimated that three-quarters – 74% – of land livestock are factory-farmed. That means that at any given time, around 23 billion animals are on these farms.
[…]
Combine land animals and fish, and the final estimate comes to 94% of livestock living on factory farms
https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed
It is a pervasive myth, supported by misleading industry advertising, that Canada does not have factory farms. Canada does, in fact, have factory farms, with the average chicken farm housing as many as 36,000 chickens.
https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/canada-chicken-farming-2024/
Like many Republican lead US-states, various conservative lead Canadian provinces have also tried put Ag-gag laws in place to limit filming of factory farms
That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn’t be morally relvent
Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify
This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter
If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions
Not the person you are replying to, but that’s not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species
Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn’t morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens
It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It’s not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It’s about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered
Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.
Since you asked that made me actually reverse image search it to double check it was originally where I thought it was from. It was not, and now I am not sure where exactly it’s originally from. The oldest version I found was from a blog from 2008, but on that post the file metadata says the photo was from May 11th, 2004
The factory farming definition they use is more specific than that. It’s based on the numbers per location
There’s not really much crab farming in the US in general. It’s basically all wild caught which has it’s own negatives to the environment like overfishing. It’s more of a thing in other parts of the world like South East Asia
Still at fairly high densities from what I can tell though not necessarily always as insane as the photos I showed earlier
The definitions of factory farming they use here are based on the number of individuals per location. There are other metrics you may object to for the rest of that 25% too
For instance
Despite the consumer demand, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average
https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production
I should also note that without demand for US beef and dairy production and consumption decreasing that’s not something that can change all that much because there just isn’t enough land for it
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Treat that more as a rounded figure since data is less precise on fish. Anything that’s not at that density would a rounding error at most. The densities of farmed fish are truly insane - usually far above the already high densities you see for land animals. The high level of concentration is not only terrible for the fish themselves, but also leads to huge pollution. Putting an unnaturally high count of fish in one area heavily concentrates their output
Parasite and disease rates are also super high. High usage of antibiotics in fish farming also lead to stuff like antibiotic resistance
I could keep going, but instead I’ll just show some photos of the absurd densities:
Same time as they dropped charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for the same exact thing at the same event. They know these charges are BS. There is no logical reason to be putting these charges, especially a week later, other than intimidation
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/ras-baraka-charge-dropped-alina-habba/
Yes, what they are trying to do is bad, but note that it needs 60 in the senate to pass the filibuster
Senate Dems were pretty vocal against it last year when they tried to get that through. Still make sure to call your senator and tell them to vote no on cloture for it, but don’t preemptively doom about it passing the house
For the moment in the current AI boom, but not expected to in the long run. Just make the progress less fast. Still not ideal, of course, but don’t get into the mindset that we can’t make any progress at all when we still can and are doing so
From the article
Ember’s report shows that clean generation growth is set to outpace faster-rising demand in the coming years, marking the start of a permanent decline in fossil fuel generation. The current expected growth in clean generation would be sufficient to meet a demand increase of 4.1% per year to 2030, which is above expectations for demand growth.
It is worth noting that you can already beat meat on price with things like beans, lentils, chickpeas, etc. Plant-based meats specifically are just more expensive because they’re building the economies of scale and putting some of their research costs into the price. Plant-based meats are also already cheaper than animal meats in some parts of the world
But yes, once that becomes much prevalent, sales will likely increase substantially
As a related note: this is also encouraging that a number of coffee chains are now dropping their non-dairy milk up charges after pressure from activists. Once they got Starbucks to do so, it’s spread to tons of chains. Even the worst plant milks are way better across all environmental metrics compared to dairy (yes even water weighted by scarcity), so it’s going to be good for the environment
It becoming financially convenient was a result of decades of intentional policy. It’s now snowballing once it got there
It would have taken far longer to get here without government involvement if applications like space travel were the only reasons for earlier research and manufacturing
If the filibuster is removed, it is also possible to get through with 50+VP as tie breaker or 51. The filibuster being removed is not as unlikely as you may think since Republicans right now are getting closer and closer towards defacto removing the filibuster. There currently are narrow ways around the filibuster (reconsideration is one big one) that are supposed to have a bunch of limitations, but they are testing the waters in ignoring violations of those limitations. The senate parliamentarian is the one who makes rulings about if something violates their clauses, but their opinion can be ignored by a strict majority via the “nuclear option”
A month ago, Republicans used the nuclear option to ignore the senate parliamentarian ruling that the Congressional Review Act would not allow them to skip the filibuster to remove California’s EPA waivers (see here).
As I write this Republicans are currently trying to play another different a different trick about some of the stuff in the Big Beautiful Bill. Dems have been challenging a bunch of provisions and getting the parliamentarian to most of the time rule they are in violation of the Byrd rule. But they are also trying to challenge the whole bill as violating the Byrd rule’s limit that a bill passed via reconsecration cannot increase the deficit over a ten-year period. Republicans are playing an accounting trick to claim it doesn’t. They know the parliamentarian is unlikely to agree with them, so they are currently trying to prevent dems from even being able to ask the parliamentarian about it