I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.

What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.

Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.

Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.

Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.

Huh seems weird. Doesn’t the US have extremely broad contract law that would make this a contract violation that can be legally enforced - including seizing your salary or bank account until the penalty is paid?

Over here you can park for free exactly once and successfully deny payment if you claim it was someone else who violated the contract. However, you can then be legally forced to sign a declaration that your vehicle will never park there again with significantly higher violation fees.

Could you imagine if TikTok started to promote far-right fascist parties?

Oh wait…

Context: The fascist German AfD is by far the most popular party on TikTok, getting more views than all others combined. It’s worse than on Facebook or YouTube.

Heitsin is a fun word. Although I’d spell it “Heizen” instead.

US 2022:

Haven’t found any numbers for other countries.

Just saw your comment, I meant it in terms of that the absence of something is often impossible to prove, therefore it is a worthless metric. The metric that should be looked at is whether something is showing indication of suffering.

I couldn’t even prove humans are capable of suffering either. You can prove that pain manifests itself through activation of certain brain regions but that doesn’t prove the existence of suffering. It’s like trying to prove that the color red is accurately visualized in your brain.

Most cows on the planet are currently living in factory farms as cattle a few months away from being slaughtered.

veterinary care

Not in factory farms. Preventative antibiotics are not veterinary care.

protection from the elements

Limited protection. In summer extreme heat from being stuck inside without air conditioning.

space to graze

Not inside factory farms.

opportunities to socialize

Not inside factory farms.

I don’t know maths beyond university linear algebra and calculus. I can still provide my opinion on math problems despite my limited knowledge because knowledge is not binary.

Those have nothing to do with imprisonment.

If I locked 10 people in a room and regularly gave them food and water they would still be imprisoned because they couldn’t leave.

We know humans suffer from imprisonment and we accept since the mid 20th century that this applies to all humans. It’s not a big stretch to assume imprisonment causes suffering for animals as well.

Besides, most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described. Except maybe drinkable water and protection from predators.

We know several intelligent animals have some sort of concept of death because they are capable of mourning. This doesn’t prove they understand personal mortality but it proves that they understand the mortality of others to some extent which is a necessity for understanding your own.

My argument why cows do not want to die is a basic evolutionary one:

Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one’s that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

Also, being neutral to the concept of death - or even not knowing about it - implies the absence of a wish to die. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

1. “Free Range” is still limited by fences usually and >99% of cows will not live in the way many people understand free range because it would be prohibitevely expensive.
2. The methods exist but are never used for the same reason as 1. Pigs in Germany for instance are suffocated to death with CO2 causing extreme - if temporary - suffering. Nitrogen is a bit more expensive which is why it isn’t used.
3. It depends. Discontinuation of happiness is one argument why killing is immoral, even if they are killed without direct suffering.
4. Is killing a cow the only way for families to live through winter (without hunger/malnutrition etc.)? Then I’d say killing one is the lesser evil. If a family has other choices that do not involve killing, then I’d say the moral action would be taking them.

There are various more - and far better articulated - reasons why killing is bad by the way. Here are some: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67606/why-is-murder-wrong

Still, I believe it is hardly possible to reliably kill without involving suffering anywhere.

Though I would consider hunting to be the most ethical variant. It’s not even a battle when factory farming exists.

Indeed, I have not studied philosophy and have only received an introduction and high-level overview from school. Which is why I’m continuously stating that I am far from an expert in regards to ethics and philosophy and this is more of an amateur reading.

From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.

I don’t think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.

Why didn’t Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I’d argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.

Again, I’m not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:

1. Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
2. Fear is suffering. Based on the manners of the one killing the cow, it can “sense” intentions/that something is off. A designated slaughtering area for instance would cause a strong fear response.
3. Restricting someone from achieving happiness and going against their wishes is suffering. We know that cows do not want to die. Killing them would violate their desires and cause suffering. This is the same (simplified) argument philosophers use to claim killing humans is bad.
4. In organisms with social bonds, killing causes grieve (= suffering) for their social circle. Here’s some more information on that, I recommend a read: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/animal-grief/

I’d argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.

Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant’s categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: “Do what is good for you AND others. Don’t do what is good for you but bad for others.”

And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: “Causes too much harm”. This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.

I know very little ethics systems that don’t inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.

When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of “pain, as processed by a nervous system”.

At least for bacteria, their structures are simple enough to be understood to a large extent by humans. We know chemical reactions cannot suffer and we know proteins cannot suffer. Due to the simple nature of bacteria, it is highly doubtful that they are capable of suffering since all “processing” occurs through varying level of chemicals and minerals.

But I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering. Rather, the ability to experience suffering must be proven.

Isn’t it pretty apparent?

If it can feel pain and suffer it shouldn’t.

Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.

Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.

The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering. Torture is bad because it causes suffering. Killing is bad because it causes suffering. Slavery is bad because it causes suffering. Rape is bad because it causes suffering. Abuse is bad because is causes suffering.

Veganism extends this to animals who are capable of suffering in ways identical to us humans. It also raises important questions: Would it be ethical to treat aliens the same way humanity treats non-humans? What if the aliens are sufficiently stupid, yet still capable of civilization? What if they’re smarter but live in solitude? Why exactly is it unethical to kill severely mentally disabled people? Is it just because humans view themselves as superior to every other living being in the universe?

I believe veganism is the objectively moral choice. Still, I’m not vegan for various reasons. But I don’t have any qualms with admitting my behavior is objectively wrong.

These two fire trucks have pretty much the same ladder length, despite one truck being nearly twice as long:

The wheels are presumably similar sized by the way.

Honestly, I pay for the service alone.

Pirating games is easy-ish enough so if Valve ever enshittifies I will be quickly learning how to remove Steam’s DRM and put all my games on a server and never purchase another video game in my lifetime.