I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.
There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.
I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.
Do you avoid all sugar products, or just honey?
Sugar growing also kills animals. You cannot avoid all harm, so why discount honey for the harm you know, but not discounting harm from growing sugar?
Reducing harm, sure, but it seems selective to discount honey for small amount of harm, when other things you (assumed) eat do equal (potentially unknown to you) harm.
Do you need to know every process of growing/transporting something to eat it? Or does you list of edible products shrink as you learn every new form of harm?
(Strawman)
Killing a few bees when collecting honey
Vs
Killing a lot of insects and rodents when plowing/tilling land to grow sugarcane/corn(sirup).
Why discount one but not the other if they are equal?
You both agree on the problem, it’s just big and encompasses all both of you said. Using the term “unhoused people” just shifts the narrative to “we just need to put them in houses”, be that new government funded housing projects, or changing regulations to dissalow empty houses, or stopping short term rental from eating central houses in cities.
Oh yeah. I thought you meant how they are used culturally. Because we have many nok-berries with berry in their name.
Damn autocorrect striking again.
This is also an autistic thing of being more logical in reasoning.
I only got diagnosed at age 30, and had some bad relationships due to me wanting truth and them feeling personally attacked by my questions.
Could be why it took you some time to realise, as most neurotypical people think in past experience for reasoning. https://psychcentral.com/autism/why-people-with-autism-are-more-logical#autism-and-logical-thinking
Humans can still be a cancer without killing them all. We can CURE cancer cells (maybe in the future). We can MANAGE cancer cells, stopping their destructive appetite for more and more energy (uncontrolled capitalism). Opting for killing the worst of them, but not all + the host. We can PREVENT spread of cancer to other cells (countries), stopping the opportunity of the cancer to live in the future. Eventually the cancer will die out a natural death.
Cancerous might be a hyperbole of our built in greed though. Humankind is a pest on the planet though. We consume too much and adapt our surroundings to us, not us adapting to our surroundings.
Shaveing them is an option. I (30M) just did for my legs. Fuck societal norms, do what you feel is right for you.
Looking for an invite. Will forward to 10 others in this post if it will allow me
I’m an autistic guy, but I feel I would be your type. Good to know that NTs /want/ that.
I’m an autistic guy, but I feel I would be your type. Good to know that NTs want that.
Take the raads-r test. It’s so close to a psychiatrist evaluation that it has a high confidence even for a self test. https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/
Just knowing you are autistic and learning about it can improve your life
Great! You just found your way to fall asleep instantly! Use it to get some more sleep in general :p
That’s a good mentality. I will start using that, thanks!
My phone has literally died many times because I wouldn’t plug it in, with the charger cable *being within reach! *
Definitely can be. It’s your body trying to control the future situations to not get emotionally hurt like you once did, by trying to map out all possible events. It just ends up as 10 negative thoughts instead of 1 potentially negative experience, so overall it is not good for you.
I agree with your arguments. We’re on the same side of all of this.
I disagree on having to remove one if both are bad. It would be like the trolley problem. 10 people suffer repeatedly indefinitely vs infinitely many suffering eventually. Moving all use to sugar cane will be worse for the environment than spreading some honey and some sugar cane. See my previous monocultulturalism point.
Personally I think honey vs sugar cane is equal, so for me the choice is bad either way. I don’t know which is worse, I try to use less, but what I use I feel is ambivalent, so I use both.