Politics

[mikey]

it's not that fox is a biased source (which depends on WHICH fox it is, the broadcast we get in salt lake county is pretty unbiased but if you go south even an inch you get "DEMS LOOK STUPID AFTER MUELLER PROBE") it's that fox has a reputation for being biased so even if the article is accurate nobody will take you seriously
so yeah, don't link fox just find the same news elsewhere
nobody is bashing you or arguing with you lol
except slow I guess

I think the animal part of green movement is kind of weird. A lot of the problems with climate change seems to have emerged after the industrial revolution. And well... ... before that people depended a lot on cattle. Like there got to have been way more farmers back then than nowadays. Sure it got to have been expensive with cattle back then I guess, and I guess people ate more vegetables back then. And because of more automation nowadays you can have more cattle. But still, people have always had cattle like cows so... makes little sense. I guess overconsumption of meat is bad (for the environment probably) and you could argue that people should eat more vegetables (which I think is good and would agree on). But being against cows and such in general makes less sense. The methane gas, which is what is bad about cows, is also kind of less bad (I've heard) than carbon dioxid (from cars and such), as the methane gas is worse than carbon dioxide, but "disappears" away faster, so less harm in the long run, but worse short term. It's probably worse with long transportation of meat, rather than "all those cows".

I could be wrong, but I believe the problem with farming is that to make room for the growing needs of animals a lot of deforestation occurs

[WaluigiTime64]

There's actually numerous problems with cattle farming. Excess methane and deforestation (as two of you said), as well as the degradation of land in certain areas not suited for cattle (due to their hooves and weight), the ludicrous amounts of fresh water required to sustain just a single cow (multiplied by... many cows), and the overconsumption of grass (which threatens (other) native wildlife), among other things.

The problems with animal farming (cattle in particular) is the absurd inefficiency and rather silly distribution of the Earth's finite resources towards making it happen, which goes into and beyond climate change issues.

[Dudeman]

solushun: eat moar chikin

[Tobbeh99]

I could be wrong, but I believe the problem with farming is that to make room for the growing needs of animals a lot of deforestation occurs

Yes. Unless you're farm is situated at a plain of some sort. But that's a common issue I've heard in like Brasil and those parts. That they have to take down a lot of woods in order to start a small farm. Although if you have a lot of plain terrain, then well... it's not that big of an issue.

[mikey]

solushun: eat moar chikin

eat more evil mormon chicken

[BlackDragonSlayer]

ROTFL!

It hurts me personally that you don't just say "ROFL."

[FireArrow]

my gay confession is that I still eat it because its good

[Splatoon Inkling]

I love beef! Hamburgers, ground beef for tacos, it tastes so good!

[The Deku Trombonist]

ground beef

I prefer sky beef

[mikey]

I thought it was a downgrade from time beef and darkness beef

[Splatoon Inkling]

Awww man! Now my beef is soggy!

[Dudeman]

I prefer sky beef

I thought it was a downgrade from time beef and darkness beef

This is lowkey the best joke on the forums on several levels

[Tobbeh99]

Turns out I was a bit mistaken on that EU law (but it still suuuuuckkks). Websites won't need to filter everything, but still sort of. They only need to do so if the rightsholders "identifies" the material. Seems just lucky that it's worded that way. That the rights holders "indetifies" works. That means that rights holders will have to point out the works they want to have unavailable (which means filtered). But the catch is that even if just 1 rights holder says "I don't want my works on this site", then that would mean that that site would have to check every upload so that that particular work is not on that site.

So if I have a site on which people can upload images to. And some rights holder gets angry that his content is on my website. Well... ... now I have to ensure either a) That the deal I make with the rights holders works (if I make one) or b) that the works are made unavailable (through filters, it's the only way). So I have to check every fucking image so that none of them are that guys work. ... ... I also like how stupid this law is. It says "in cooperation with rights holders" like they really think that all web sites that host user generated content have a bunch of deals with rights holders. Like... it's not happening. But according to EU, EU wants websites to cooperate with rights holders, for some reason.

So it flaws on many areas. It assumes people are going to make a bunch of deals all over the place (that websites and rights holders just do a bunch of deals (and trying to force them to do this by law). And then the obvious filter problem. So y, maybe the law wasn't horrible as you have to actually identify the content (as a rights holder) (like the only good part about the law, so it's not an automatic filter). But still extremely bad.

[Splatoon Inkling]

I think I understand article 13 better now. Wow, that's really not good. Pretty much like Obama's net neutrality program, but global.

[Tobbeh99]

Well y. But this article will obviously make rights holders earn more money (lol). And make people respect peoples rights on the internet (loooool). ... ...