Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[TheReal_ND]

Sneaky German bastards will stop at nothing to make Frankfurt the banking capital of Europe...

London City Airport is still closed today as disposal experts work to make safe a WWII bomb which was found in the Thames nearby.

The device was found on Sunday and a cordon put up late that evening after discussions between the Royal Navy and Metropolitan Police.

Transport for London said Docklands Light Railway services will not run between Pontoon Dock and Woolwich Arsenal owing to the 214-metre (700ft) exclusion zone.

The discovery was made as survey work was carried out as part of the airport's £480 million expansion programme. A spokesman said the device remains under water and is likely to be removed on Monday night, with the aim of reopening the airport on Tuesday.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 63921.html

[Montegriffo]

Still got the SS Richard Montgomery to worry about too.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/81610 ... rning-bomb

Thousands of tons? Tsunami? What is this, the British Enquirer?

First time I've seen the Tsunami angle but the 1000 tons of explosives is real enough. It's too dangerous to do anything about it so it's just fingers crossed and hope for the best.

[TheReal_ND]

Uh.... What's going on there France?

[Fife]

Why do you hate planned parenthood, nuke?

Why do you insist upon dictating human rights for others, like fundamental human rights?

Why do you want to be all up in other's bodies, and shit?

WFT man?

[TheReal_ND]

*helicopters idling in the distance*

[Montegriffo]

[JohnDonne]

Nutritional information in favor of veganism is in the majority I believe. But like you I feel no inclination to engage in a cherry-picking competition as most nutritional arguments seem to devolve into. I will say I view the plethora of healthy vegan examples out there as living proof that veganism supports healthy human life. I assume myself and other vegans are not physical as well as ideological anomalies, we are of the same biology and genes as our meat eating brethren with varying levels of success. We do not expect from others what we do not expect from ourselves. We ask for scientific proof that meat is a requirement for humanity from those that make the claim. I'd also wonder if the occasional anemic or vaguely sick person is not too great a price to pay for society to wash its hands of innocent blood. And perhaps there are work arounds, the meat from dead deer found on the road could be ethically procured for these carnivorous health anomalies. Though I guess the point will be moot in a few years when in vitro meat hits the shelves.

This brings us pretty cleanly around to the initial moral conflict of the discussion.

While, theoretically, veganism promises to expand moral consideration to all conscious creatures, practically, it often only seems to reduce moral consideration for humans.

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple. Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

Or, if you believe you require animal protein for health reasons, we aren't heartless, we value life. Get a doctor's note and we can ration you some possum meet we scraped off the interstate.

Veganism only seems like it is even possibly ethical where there are no conflicts between human and animal wellness. Perhaps there will be technological advancements or medical discoveries that make that world a reality (I really don't think we are quite there yet), but until then, absolute moral equivalence of all consciousness is always a bit of an own goal, ethics-wise.

Your argument about an ethical veganism requiring absolutely no conflicts between "animal and human wellness" would seem to suggest that veganism is the better choice, since meat eating conflicts with animal wellness vastly more than veganism supposedly would conflict with human wellness. From an ethical point of view and judging by that standard, veganism is the more ethical option.

You seem to paint veganism as an unreasonable, radical ideology, but it's just the opposite, veganism is radical only in that it diverges from a radical status quo.

[Fife]

JD is on a roll.

"Radical status quo" is my favorite term of art for the week so far.

I'm going to use that term IRL tomorrow, I guarantee it.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Fife]

*helicopters idling in the distance*

FFS, I told you to put the keys for the Huey in a secure spot, *not* just stuck in the ignition, like it wouldn't kill the battery.

[JohnDonne]

The other posters like c-mag, grumpy, and STA, are all ignoring the moral arguments I've made and are propagating at best dubious information, for example, that it's too expensive and impractical for most people to be vegan, that you can't be healthy as a vegan, that the earth could not support everyone being vegan, none of this comes with any evidence and I guarantee there are more cherries to pick on my side of the argument from better sources. But that is the most tedious aspect of arguing about veganism and it's been done to death, I would like to spare the readers and myself.

C-mag's argument about humans and hunting being a part of nature is the appeal to nature fallacy. Grumpy claiming that meat is a necessity to the human body and that being vegan is "arguing with nature" is the same fallacy except based on the unproven and much refuted premise that the human body needs meat.

We are talking about ethics here, not what is most natural, not which diet is "the healthiest," not fads, but ethics.