I’ve strong downvoted not because I believe @Vasco Grilo🔸 doesn’t have a decent argument, but because I think posting “what about the downstream effect of x” as a reply on every thread is often counterproductive to the core discussion that poster’s are trying trying to have.
Even more so because @Vasco Grilo’s opinion on farmed animal welfare has changed in the last ?6 months or so—before that he would have pushed in the other direction. I think its great to have these well thought out opinions and discuss them as distinct post (as Vasco does), but I don’t think dropping the meat eating problem/nematode effect on a lot of human and animal welfare threads is helpful.
Otherwise every discussion risks descending into a discussion about moral weights, or the effect of every single intervention on nematodes.
Thanks, Nick. I have upvoted your comment because I appreciate when people share the rationale for their strong down or upvotes. I guess (with low confidence) my comment may still be valuable at least to people who have not noted my point about increasing the consumption of animal-based foods in my related post, which is only at the end of the summary, raising awareness for impacts on soil animals, and normalising discussion about these. The major downsise is that many people like you already know my point, and do not like the repetition.
I think this critique is stronger as applied to other posts in which Vasco’s comment runs a more significant risk of derailing the original poster’s topic and intended discussion. Here, I think Vasco’s point can be understood as somewhat complementary to the original idea. If dairy is not that bad, then the possibility that anti-dairy advocacy could have undesirable downstream effects on other animals may be an additional reason for deprioritizing such advocacy. In contrast, I think posting a comment like this in (e.g.) a global-health thread runs an elevated risk of the “discussion . . . descending into a discussion about moral weights, or the effect of every single intervention on nematodes.”
I’ve strong downvoted not because I believe @Vasco Grilo🔸 doesn’t have a decent argument, but because I think posting “what about the downstream effect of x” as a reply on every thread is often counterproductive to the core discussion that poster’s are trying trying to have.
Even more so because @Vasco Grilo’s opinion on farmed animal welfare has changed in the last ?6 months or so—before that he would have pushed in the other direction. I think its great to have these well thought out opinions and discuss them as distinct post (as Vasco does), but I don’t think dropping the meat eating problem/nematode effect on a lot of human and animal welfare threads is helpful.
Otherwise every discussion risks descending into a discussion about moral weights, or the effect of every single intervention on nematodes.
Thanks, Nick. I have upvoted your comment because I appreciate when people share the rationale for their strong down or upvotes. I guess (with low confidence) my comment may still be valuable at least to people who have not noted my point about increasing the consumption of animal-based foods in my related post, which is only at the end of the summary, raising awareness for impacts on soil animals, and normalising discussion about these. The major downsise is that many people like you already know my point, and do not like the repetition.
I think this critique is stronger as applied to other posts in which Vasco’s comment runs a more significant risk of derailing the original poster’s topic and intended discussion. Here, I think Vasco’s point can be understood as somewhat complementary to the original idea. If dairy is not that bad, then the possibility that anti-dairy advocacy could have undesirable downstream effects on other animals may be an additional reason for deprioritizing such advocacy. In contrast, I think posting a comment like this in (e.g.) a global-health thread runs an elevated risk of the “discussion . . . descending into a discussion about moral weights, or the effect of every single intervention on nematodes.”