EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 576
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 23 2017 02:42 Dark_Chill wrote: Would it be possible for a pet rental shop to exist? Many people love pets, but don't have a place which can accommodate them or afford them for several years. Vets, food, and everything is expensive after all. From this, would a rental service, allowing people to rent pets for certain amounts of time before returning them, work? You as the owner pay for medical, and food costs, while customers pay per hour. There is "Bark n Borrow" It's pretty close to what you're talking about but I imagine they only do up to about the length of a vacation, but who knows, maybe some people put their animals up there for entire seasons because they don't do animals in that season's house or whatever. Also it's subscription based and the interactions are free. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 24 2017 15:08 OtherWorld wrote: Isn't it illegal for a State to create stateless citizens, because of some international treaty whose name I forgot ? Doesn't seem to be, at least from reading a US document about renouncing one's citizenship, it has a warning that basically goes "be careful not to become stateless, this is unrevocable!" and there's another warning at the bottom that reminds me of "are you sure you want to delete system32?" | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On January 24 2017 22:57 Djzapz wrote: Doesn't seem to be, at least from reading a US document about renouncing one's citizenship, it has a warning that basically goes "be careful not to become stateless, this is unrevocable!" and there's another warning at the bottom that reminds me of "are you sure you want to delete system32?" Closest is the New York convention: en.wikipedia.org Articles 5 through 9 provide guidelines on the laws that entail loss of nationality. Loss of nationality should usually not apply if it renders someone stateless, but exceptions are possible. Only 67 countries have ratified the convention. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18378 Posts
On January 24 2017 23:30 Yoav wrote: I've read some stuff about ex-Soviet citizens who were rendered stateless by neither Russia nor the Republic they resided in wanting them back when they were abroad after the fall of the USSR. Don't remember if there were other factors involved. They were pretty badly screwed. A good friend of mine back in NL was stateless for quite a while before she could get the Dutch nationality. Her family fled the USSR for political reasons, but were denied political asylum when the USSR fell apart. But obviously they didn't want to go back to Russia, so they applied for economic migrant status. This was back in the nineties, when such procedures could take forever. Long story short, she fell through the cracks, and while the migrant status was denied, by then they also couldn't go anywhere else, because she (nor her family) were Russian citizens (their only passports were expired USSR passports), and Russia simply denied them citizenship based on their birth certificates (not that they really wanted to try either, because they didn't want to live in Russia). Eventually they were given economic migrant status in NL, when NL pardoned about 15,000 migrants who were stuck without other recourse... but it was truly stupid: she was one of the smartest people I have met, and was doing her PhD on Dutch law, in a Dutch university. Imho, NL is lucky to have her. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 25 2017 13:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: If meat gets made/engineered in a way so that there never develops any type of neural brain network would vegetarians still be against eating it? What about a fetus before the cells differentiate into brain cells? | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 25 2017 13:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: If meat gets made/engineered in a way so that there never develops any type of neural brain network would vegetarians still be against eating it? I'd guess it would be an individual choice for each vegetarian, depending on why they became vegetarians in the first place | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6300 Posts
| ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 24 2017 23:30 Yoav wrote: I've read some stuff about ex-Soviet citizens who were rendered stateless by neither Russia nor the Republic they resided in wanting them back when they were abroad after the fall of the USSR. Don't remember if there were other factors involved. They were pretty badly screwed. Significantly more complicated than that, at least for Latvia/Estonia. After a long period of occupation and a quasi-ethnic cleansing, there were significant portions of the Russian military stationed in the countries. That same military that had been historically used as a method of repression of revolts at other periods of instability. People who were brought from Russia to say, Estonia, did not have the same grounds for citizenship as ethnic Estonians did, namely being citizens of the state that existed before Soviet occupation. Not to say that this status does not have major downsides, but a significant proportion of the stateless have chosen citizenship of either Russia or a Baltic country in the last 27 years, and a large number of them do not want citizenship, since that means they get visa-free travel to Russia as well as the EU (Getting a citizenship of either would make either residency or travel more difficult/expensive), without losing the benefits residency gives them. It's a conscious choice for some. Whether the grounds for gaining citizenship - speaking the local language - are overly discriminatory, there's some debate, since while the topic of statelessness is constantly raised by Russia (and not many others), the protection of the language and culture is a constitutional matter, especially since the populations are comparatively small and shrinking. The Ukrainian conflict has further raised concerns that make advancements on the issue more difficult. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11928 Posts
On January 25 2017 15:52 OtherWorld wrote: I'd guess it would be an individual choice for each vegetarian, depending on why they became vegetarians in the first place I personally would probably eat vat-grown meat (If it is tasty and there is no big other reason not to eat it). I am a vegetarian. But obviously i am not the speaker of vegetarianism, so some might not. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On January 25 2017 13:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: the meat already exists and is made from stem cells(as base) of different animals then grown in a lab. If meat gets made/engineered in a way so that there never develops any type of neural brain network would vegetarians still be against eating it? as to that later part - it would depend on why did people turn vegan in the first place and those reasons are way more diverse than what you implied there: vegans don't eat meat to prevent/curb animal suffering. put those reasons to rest and they'll eat it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11928 Posts
On January 25 2017 18:42 xM(Z wrote: the meat already exists and is made from stem cells(as base) of different animals then grown in a lab. as to that later part - it would depend on why did people turn vegan in the first place and those reasons are way more diverse than what you implied there: vegans don't eat meat to prevent/curb animal suffering. put those reasons to rest and they'll eat it. It exists, but currently it is afaik both not tasty and incredibly expensive. Also, as you said, people are complex, and no matter how you group them, the resulting groups will not be uniformous blobs of clones with exactly the same reasons and ideas.. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18378 Posts
On January 25 2017 19:27 opisska wrote: For me, this idea of manufacturing meat artificially is utterly absurd and possibly detrimental. I don't get the obsession with meat at all and I don't like it in particular (with the exception of fish, to be fair). The main reason I eat (non-fish) meat is laziness - the offer of food with meat is just so much bigger around me than the offer of non-meat products. I would be much happier if instead of investing resources into making fake meat, we would rather invest into making good non-meat food more widely available - or at least focus into making artificial fish meat. But no, I am pretty sure that the first thing people grow like this is some disgusting steaks, right? Clearly this is highly regional. My girlfriend is vegetarian (pescatarian, actually) because she simply doesn't like the flavor of meat. She'll sometimes eat chicken, but that's about it: she doesn't like red meat, and loathes pork. Probably partially cultural/religious, but doesn't really matter: she actually dislikes the flavor enough that she doesn't eat croissants made with lard, whereas croissants are otherwise one of her most favourite foods (to be fair, croissants should be made with butter and are better that way, but I personally don't mind lard). Anyway, back to the point: we can both cook vegetarian meals easily (we do), and tend not to have many problems with restaurants here (although eating fish and other seafood is clearly a big help). Travelling through South America was obviously harder, and she ate fried egg with rice, corn and salad more often than she would have liked, because the alternative was fried meat, grilled meat or stewed meat. The investments in "non-meat food" are almost uniformly awful. They go to Quorn and other such wannabe meats. Why make hamburger patties for vegetarians that look, feel and smell as near to real meat as possible (but are actually pretty bloody terrible), instead of using actual veggies to make a delicious and healthy veggy burger (we do that at home, and most serious burger joints here actually do a pretty good portobello burger). The investments needed are in public education to desire less meat (hard, I know), which will mean vegetarian alternatives become more common on restaurant menus, and more varied in your choice. Because at home it's pretty easy to cook some wonderful vegetarian meals. But that doesn't preclude the necessity to grow meat in vats. It should really go hand in hand, because putting meat on plates in a way that requires no harm to animals (depending on how we classify steaks in vats, that may or may not be possible) is still a good goal. Moreover, we should be more open to eating insects. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
It's less that animals suffer and more that animals rights and human rights are animal rights. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18378 Posts
On January 26 2017 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: Vegans can't even handle eating honey made from the slavery of bees. Unsure if stem cell harvesting is okay in their mind. It's less that animals suffer and more that animals rights and human rights are animal rights. Well, it's clearly not that. Most vegans I know are okay with: 1. Riding horses 2. Exterminating rats (and other pests) 3. Driving cars (murdering hundreds of innocent insects on the windshield) So clearly animals don't have the same rights as humans, because they would not be okay with replacing "human" in any of the situations above. | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 26 2017 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: Vegans can't even handle eating honey made from the slavery of bees. Unsure if stem cell harvesting is okay in their mind. It's less that animals suffer and more that animals rights and human rights are animal rights. I don't think it's a unitary block. I have played with the idea of veganism, but that for me would be giving up dairy and egg products, honey I would be OK with. Same as there are people who severely restrict their intake of meat and call themselves vegetarian, for that matter, to champion the cause for those looking to make a change, but similarly unwilling to commit fully. | ||
| ||
