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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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
Which one is natural? A lobster fighting another lobster in its natural environment, or a human stuffing them into a pot of boiling water?
Here, let's meet up and we can test both on you to see which you think is more cruel.
Then you wrap it up with a fat paragraph of whataboutism. You're dwindeling.
I reject the claim that natural is good. Appeal to Nature is a common logical fallacy.
both. unless you think humans are supernatural.
Humans putting anything alive into a boiling pot of water is not natural. You're a dillusional nutcase.
so humans aren't natural?
Learned cognitive skills are a part of evolution. Monkeys using sharp sticks to spear fish, birds using bread to lure prey, or fishing spitting water to kill insects by your definition is unnatural
Interesting attempt to call out a whataboutism (I'll check on that in a moment), after making your own appeal-to-nature fallacy, wrapped in red-herring fallacy.
And, strikingly:
Besides that being a vile proposal, it seems a thought experiment you've not thought through.
Okay, lets see where I made a whataboutism...
After some careful consideration... nope. Not a whataboutism fallacy. Was not deflecting. Was showing context to draw even more attention to the matter. Was not an attempt to make one thing seem okay by some other equivalent or worse thing. Was drawing the point of the implausibility that the government are caring for lobsters, given their past actions [Though, can steelman that argument better, if even only just on the face value of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" aspect of big clumsy government, or even (I find incredulous) that this is under a New Labour government, not a Conservative or Conservative&LibDem coalition government]. And I certainly was not at any point trying to make it sound like it's okay to boil lobsters alive. Sorry for whatever lack of clarity about that which I may have caused by neglectful omission of explicitly stating my position on that. ... I do not think it's right to boil lobsters alive, especially when there are other less cruel means to dispatch them. Though, I do remain open to more scientific scrutiny and reasoning on the matter, and can entertain other possibilities (like, maybe their nerve endings shut off from boiling and they dont actually suffer? And perhaps the knife through the head leaves them in an effective eternal state of suffering felt all over? Or other unknowns.).
::: spoiler If you're as into pastes of fairly lengthy discussions with an LLM to analyse fallacies in interactions as I am, click here Oh bugger... It's too lengthy to paste to lemmy. I forgot, this is not diaspora. okies, pasting to a file on my kimsufi... http://ks392457.kimsufi.com/stuff/llmpaste20251224fallacyanalysis it's only about a thousand lines long. I will add though... despite my efforts to counter the llm sycophancy corruption effect, it's probably still leaning too lenient and biased.
I'll break it down for you, since reading comprehension is difficult.
Whatbaoutism does not mean (X is worse, therefore Y is fine)
Whataboutism is also anything that shifts the context of the narrative. As you did by switching it from lobsters to disabled people in the UK. One has nothing to do with the other. You are attempting whataboutism wrapped in a hypocrisy tortilla.
Thank you for also noting that the proposal was vile, so you can agree its a vile act to boil lobsters alive as you finally noted in the end of your response, yes?
Its also nice to see you claim that appeal to nature fallacy, but it is clear you again have no reading comprehension or you would have landed in the ballpark of what I did is called descriptive contrast.
You entirelt deflected because nothing you added was context related to the topic.
You d-e-f-l-e-c-t-e-d
Humans have moral agency. Lobsters have not been proven or shown to have that, therefore we can not judge or dictate what or how a lobster does anything. We can, however, demand ethical scrutiny regardless of their own behavior.
Wow.
Several strawman arguments, misrepresenting whataboutism (sounded more like a definition or red herring or moved goal post) and another fallacious accusation of whataboutism, appeal to definition, begging the question, false dichotomy, non-sequitur and self-contradiction, red herring, ad-hominems and deflection (ironically even in your hypocritical emphatic repetition of accusation of deflection (which was already refuted, and nothing done to tackle the refutation, as with other parts in this exchange)), appeal to ignorance, vague jargon, projection, dismissiveness, evasiveness, sophistry... and was that even another (at least) couple appeal to nature fallacies too, one of which wrapped in one of the strawman arguments, offering a redundant subtly moved-goal post?
That's a hefty brandolini's-law workload to expand upon each fallacy (and malady) to offer counter-explanations and refutations to. So much so... I don't think we're going to make much progress here. Bowing out.
That was a lot of word salad with no citations. Good on you for maintaining how you move the goal posts. Its a certain level of ignorance to maintain that lifestyle. Good on you for commitment.
Both. Humans are animals, everything we do is natural.
That is completely incorrect. Operating a car is not natural, it is learned and a privilege. Flying a plane is not natural, it is earned, and heavily regulated which is why not everyone can be a pilot.
Even replying on here though a magic rock that somehow converse to any area of the earth, not natural.
You need to open a dictionary and start learning words. I hate to shit on you in a reddit behavior way, but you sound dillusional.
We're an animal using the skills our species is born with. If making a fire and boiling water is unnatural, so is foxes digging holes, leaf cutter ants farming mold, and woodpeckers drilling into trees.
You as a human are just as much of an animal as any of them and everything you evolved to do is natural. But at least you're a self righteous asshole, so you've got that going for you I guess.
It was never stated or implied that boiling water is unnatural. You're putting a notion in that was never there. Feel free to quote me where I said boiling water is unnatural.
A self righteous asshole with better reading comprehension than you have apparently.
So anyways, boiling a living creature ---> alive <---- is not a 'natural' thing in human nature.
There is some interesting evidence which suggests early humans and related species may have used naturally occurring hot springs to boil food, so it's not exactly out of the question. It's not DEFINITIVE by any means, but interesting.
https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/olduvai-gorge-hot-springs-08858.html
I'm not arguing that humans use boiling water to cook things. My argument is, and stands, that it not natural to take something living, and boil it alive.
That is interesting research though, thanks for the link.
Using boiling water to cook food is also natural.
Pardon me going a little off topic, but I can't get over how bad this sentence is.
Work on your writing next.
Is 'natural' in single quotes because you're using your own personal definition of 'natural'?
Looking at every other carnivore on the planet, I'd say that empathizing with our food is less 'natural' than killing it painfully.
That response was everything I needed to read to understand exactly how smooth your brain is. Good luck
That's fine, I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to say with "putting a notion in". Is that an idiom somewhere? Maybe somewhere that doesn't speak English?
Maybe try using some AI software to ask it what it means, as reading comprehension is hard for you. Also, if you are going to paraphrase, you should do it correctly. Since you're changing the topic of the conversation to one regarding writing. Weak deflection, but youre trying none the less.
Smooooottthhh as ice.
Never heard the "Nothing unnatural exists" perspective asserted?
If doing naive realism (as certainly seems could be the case), that'd be wild to jump from one to the other. :)
As worth quibbling our way out of tautologies and naive realist definitions of "magic" as for "natural".
Half tempted to dispell the magic, and elaborate on the physics, chemistry, basics of hardware design, machine code, assembly, the various programming languages and their compilers, network infrastructure, packets, monitors, keyboards, ascii/utf8, font design (and accessibility interfaces), web protocols, federation, etc etc etc etc etc
Mhmm. Presumptive, arrogant, condescending, ad-hominem flinging... I wonder if there's some narcissism here, besides the smugnorance born of naive realism and wilful ignorance and lack of curiosity or humility. Could learn so much more, if took that plank out of your eye, rather than chastising others for what you presume in theirs.