I’m not arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws about animal abuse. Here’s what I’m saying:

• Making the law very strict in a way that would make animal agriculture impossible, or its products too expensive, would be politically impossible. People would oppose such changes.
• But if you make a special case where cruelty just for the sake of cruelty, for entertainment, would be severly punished, I think that would be very much acceptable. I don’t imagine that people would oppose that. And that’s a win we can take.
• The bar for “animal abuse” remains unfortunately low for most industries, but we take every win we can get.
• That doesn’t prevent us from continuing to educate people about the realties of human agriculture, and to make people think about their impact on sentient beings’ wellbeing and suffering.

And I don’t consume animal products.

Well, I’ll take any protection of living beings I can get.

What is problematic about my food choices? I think they’re generally in line with my morals.

This has no relation to the meaning of “entertainment” I’m using.

I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.

“Entertainment” in its usual meaning, like watching something for fun.

Couldn’t we at least make an exception for when the cruelty is for entertainment?

Didn’t most people come to you and just say “It’s broken, can you fix it?”. I don’t mind admitting I broke a screen but I don’t feel like this is necessary information, unless the repairperson asks.

Relevant user name.

I always stay far from the subway tracks for this reason. Might be an irrational fear but I’m more confortable like this and it’s not like it prevents me from getting on the train when it arrives.

They could put gambling in the hands of the State, as it’s done in my region.

Carney rejected a Trump deal because Canada is a democracy. This is terrible!

Just going to add: add browns, such as paper, torn carboard, wood chips… otherwise your pile of grass risks becoming a stinky anaerobic monstruosity.

Maybe we should reduce the number of cars.

If others are curious: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6WpMlwVwydo

It was created in 1997 and blew up in 1999.

Don’t forget the heavy metals, too.

Which is a subsidy.

It’s also why we say that cars are heavily subsidized: road maintenance, parking spaces, large bridges… all costs that would be significantly down if urban areas were organized around public transit and active transit.

Car infrastructure is a cost paid by all for the benefit of only a part of society.

I commonly find them at metal concerts and metal bars.

That would be crazy otherwise.

John (17 years and 11 months) and Mary (17 years and 5 months) are in an intimate relationship since 6 months and are sexually active.

John hits his birthday and now they can’t have sex for 6 months (otherwise it would be rape).

I’m assuming that it had stayed so high for so long precisely because almost everyode was driving well under the speed limit.

I hope so.

For me, it only shows two images and a short text that doesn’t say anything about what they’re proposing. Only an intro.