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
He fuckin deserved it
Spear fishing, or any traditional fishing method, forr food, is about as ethical as it gets. It's a pretty even field. You're out of your element, and using muscle power, while exerting yourself, while running out of oxigen.
Trawling and other intensive methods are not.
Bow hunting large animals, especially boar, which can be dangerous as all fuck, is also fine by me. Shooting small game with fucking 12 gauge, is not.
How does a method being traditional make it more ethical? Aren't more ethical methods of hunting about minimising agony of an animal when killed using all available technology? So a firearm shot would be more ethical than slow-to-kill arrow?
1st. I'm an omnivore. You are too. We are not hevibores. It's a survival trait. Rats, bears, and a few other animals are too. There is the question of choice, of course. I choose to remain what evolution has made me. That said, I try to eat as much free range meat/fish (I'm still trying to figure out the problem of aquaculture vs intensive and destructive fishing) as I possibly can.
2nd. Animals are part of a freeding chain, except for a few, like us, Orcas, etc. who are apex predators.
3rd. I don't hunt anymore, but I still fish. I feel better if the animal, my adversary, is in somewhat even terms. Call it some twisted atavic logic, but to me it makes it ethically acceptable.
BTW, I do get a pleasure from winning that fight, but I don't derive pleasure from the death itself.
But that's just me. However, just as I respect the choice of vegetarians and vegans, I do not acknowledge the rights of others judging me for being what evolution has made me. I do, however , try to be a "better" animal eater.
I consider your argument the more ethical one. If an animal is going to die, isn't the most humane method the most ethical? However, I also see the other side, which is giving the animal the chance to kill the human first. It's kinda twisted logic. If you're going that route then the most humane method would be not kill them at all.
Fine by you does not mean fine by the animal. It's not "about as ethical as it gets". That's completely delusional. Exercising and holding your breath does not factor into the ethics of needless killing.
Killing plants is unethical.
sure sweetie
What? They’re alive. It’s been shown they communicate. They’re a LOT more sophisticated than people think.
I'm sure this is a belief you seriously hold with great conviction. It just happens to only come up when you're confronted with the cruelty of killing and eating sentient animals
Just like you won’t, in any way whatsoever, entertain the idea that eating plants is unethical. Your convictions on the matter are so strong that you simply won’t consider that they, too, are living beings.
When did I state that plants aren't alive? They are not sentient. That's a different thing. Even if they were sentient, it wouldn't change the fact that we need to eat plants to survive. We do not need to eat animals. And we cause fewer plant deaths by eating them directly, rather than indirectly through eating organisms of higher trophic levels.
My rejection of your argument based on its merits is not a failure to consider it.