World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
While not getting into whether we should eat meat at all, if we are eating meat, I don't see how eating dog meat is any more or less immoral than eating most other meats. Eating someone's pet, whether it be a dog or a pot belly pig is a shit move, but I doubt the restaurant was told they were buying someone's pet.
I can't think of any animal that has such an innate empathetic connection to humans as dogs. Dogs can read us, and we can read them.
Can you read a cat, does a cat read you?
You should not justify animals rights not to be slaughtered by their connection to humans.
Pigs are deeply empathic, horses read humans very well, and whales have complex family systems. The division "cute animals" and "edible ones" is just a cultural construct to avoid the moral atrocity.
EDIT: typos
this is absolutely it, people feel they have deep connections to their pets and that the experience of other animals must be shallow and meaningless by comparison, its a sample issue and a cultural bias.
Wild dogs don't, and some people don't have any interest in an empath9c connection with dogs. After that, most animals are deeply interested in their own survival.
Wild dogs are very scary
Some "domestics" are scary too
I find it strange how you’re getting downvoted, since there’s so much evidence to back up your point. There’s literally a whole page on Wikipedia that goes over it.
Some points it brings up:
I started on 8 upvotes it's been a tremendous journey
More because it's beside the point. Sure, dogs are unique in that way. That's not why they're taboo to eat specifically in our part of the world.
No, that’s very much a part of why it’s considered taboo. Obviously there’s a wide range of difference in cultural opinion of what’s considered “okay” to eat, but dogs have still been with humans for the longest out of any domesticated animal. They’ve literally evolved to eat diets more like our own. It’s completely intuitive that there would be such vehement opposition to eating an animal we’re so historically close to, even if it’s mostly on a cultural basis.
A study can find practically find any correlation it wants based on its premises. Studies have also found that sugar based diets are better than fat based ones. But neither are very convincing on telling about how to proceed on a specific issue.
No, you anthromorphize and project on them, but you don't read them. They are an animal and we have no way of knowing what they think. What we have is a cultivated relationship through years of selective breeding, same as could be done with plenty of animals given the reason and time.
I'm glad you love your pet, but you don't know if they love you. You assume based on human projection, forgetting they are not human.
You've never had a friend chicken. God damn are chickens cute, friendly animals if you keep one as a pet. Almost makes me feel bad eating them, all animals are empathetic if you spend some time with them.
Then why are horses also controversial to eat?
Let's be real, this isn't a thing where someone sat down and decided morally speaking what our diet should be. It's a cultural standard, and it's the same as Hindus being mad that in the West we specifically eat beef.
Now add human into that sentence
it's a safety concern. Cannibalism spreads diseases easier.
Human meat, much like rabbit meat, can cause "rabbit starvation" so I suppose that's another reason. Plus people get their panties in a wad if you start talking about eating other people for some reason. I personally think there's plenty of fat billionaires I would not mind eating.
Nah cannibalism is cringe
Kill the billionaires and turn them into corpse fertilizer instead!
And kind of really lean meat can cause "rabbit starvation". Humans just can't process too much protein.
Like you said, though, many humans are deliciously marbled, or have a fat layer you could focus on.
So does the gigantic animal industry we have today.
Also, humans tend to fight back more than we want to deal with.
Which one? They wrote two sentences.
Unironically it still makes perfect sense.
technically everything has a consciousness including plants, beans etc so you lose high ground if youre going to play a moral card in any of this. plants just can run away or scream.
it can still be tragic to eat an animal companion.
let's just not pretend someone holds sll the moral cards for not eating consciousness to stay alive. nobody in these fleshbags holds any of the high ground there.
If you believe plants experience suffering, and would like to reduce suffering, you should go vegan. The reason is that by eating meat, you kill or harm way more plants — the plants that have been eaten by the animals you eat.
I think the point is that we all eat food, and at some point in it's production, some suffering happened. and that's alright
edit:
this has nothing to do with privilege. it's talking about the democracy of food.
this is the peak of privilege
why won't you leave me alone
I tend to respond to bad takes.
leave me alone
dude, I don't even know you. I see nonsense and I post a reply. feel free to block me if you want.
you've been stalking me since January. stop
get over yourself, fr feel free to block
disengage
oh, no thanks!
To be clear: I am not disagreeing about introducing more plants to replace meats and other unhealthy stuff on a health and economic perspective. That path of awareness is not what im having a problem with.
What i am disagreeing with is that you or anyone who is eating plant based is using the reasoning that you've absolved suffering overall somehow by going vegan. this path of thinking creates a problem for everyone you cannot possibly solve. including yourself.
This is suggesting we must only ever hold an awareness that to live is to suffer and continue imposing suffering on others. And it doesnt matter what you subsitute. It is all suffering from the consciousness perspective if everything is made of consciousness in order to exist(create and distribute). everything you ever consume will have held conscious and will have affected consciousnrss in order to exist and be available to you.
you will never find a solution to that while you exist as a human that requires to consume consiousness to continue to exist. at least in this form as a human. there is no altruistic answer in this kind of an argument.
plants cant scream. they cannot run. they might not have a fluffy tail and do not lick your face but they are still conscious. And that does not make you any less of a monster in this vilifying moralistic scenario you've manifested to shove towards all of humanity.
Can you cite the scientific study that or the philosopher who says with so much confidence that plants (or even animals, for that matter) have consciousness? Don't get me wrong, my personal belief is closer to your statement, but I have always held that as belief, not fact.
Are you holding me to a higher standard over all the scientists who currently exist whom still cannot prove let alone agree upon where exactly in the body that human consciousness exists?
I'd almost take that as a compliment if I didn't believe you are severely mislead on the certainties of human consciousness enough that you had any ground to call into question plant consciousness.
~~Sure, but not all dogs are pets.~~
Edit: Yep, wrong comment.
i not sure nor can i imagine what that answers in anything ive said here. so im just going to assume you've misread and misposted and are lost or just a shitposter.