This is what you get when all you talk about it the positives, especially to new programmers or students. It's not about the why, but only if you do or do not.
I'll die on this hill, but DDD can be put right up there with microservices as a solution to a certain type of problem being sold as THE solution.
I'm interested to hear more about your views on DDD - especially if you have examples where DDD has been actively harmful.
Usually my advice for anyone thinking about building a new piece of software for a particular business goal is to a) run an event storming workshop with a group of domain experts to help get a really good idea of events, actors, commands, information flow and clusters of behaviour, and then b) run a second pass where you think the domain through in terms of transactional boundaries and DDD aggregates, and then c) do a third pass where you think specifically about security constraints and how they can be met.
It's an expensive exercise in terms of time taken up front, but having completed it, hopefully the team have gained enough of an insightful understanding of the domain that they won't make silly hard-to-reverse mistakes like needing transactions that span service boundaries, or building demonstrably distinct domains which share similar concepts into uber objects spanning those domains, or having one service depend on information from multiple other services in order to apply required security constraints.
Anyway, TLDR is I have found DDD and DDD-adjacent methods extremely helpful for thinking through designs and making app architecture decisions.
Why would you be against eating animals products? Many produce them naturally themselves. For example, chickens lay eggs if we want them to or not. If humans don't take the eggs, chickens would eat them themselves or leave them to rot. If you're against industrial farming of them, fine, but there are plenty of eggs you can buy from certified ethical farms. Or even better, you can keep them yourself! They are great to get rid of food scraps.
Same with bees and honey. The only times you hear it mentioned that it harms the bees is when no sources are provided or the study turns out to be garbage (and waylaid by multiple other studies that are tiptoed around).
I’m against industrial farming because of the horrific conditions.
Also stuff drinking the milk of another animal, something that’s reserved for its child, is kind of horrible. All those cows are lined up and pumped and then what? Probably killed. At least to me it is fuckin brutal.
The only thing you can legitimately call me out on is that I don’t go to the doctor or engage much in modern medicine. Seeing monkeys with their brains exposed or puppies and cats suffering “for science” is also wack to me. When it’s my time I’ll go. Hopefully not too much pain.
> If you're against industrial farming of them, fine, but there are plenty of eggs you can buy from certified ethical farms.
The parent notes that they are willing to compromise on being vegan for convenience, so presumably they are not against ethically produced animal products, but would forgo animal products altogether as a matter of convenience as well. Ethically produced animal products may not be verifiably accessible for someone for many reasons.
I doubt you've seen industrial slaughterhouse videos that aren't meant to sensationalize. I've even walked around in some, where all rules and guidelines are followed, and I can still eat meat just fine. The animals don't realize what happens and death is instantaneous.
How do I rationalize it? Animals are being eaten in nature too, we at least don't eat them while they're often still alive (like in nature). Plants are living organisms too, and everyone eats those without a second thought. It's just that they don't pass a self-determined bar for many.
The environmental impact is a completely different question, unrelated to this.
The only one arguing in bad faith is you, along with the cookie-cutter propaganda that you consume without further thought.
You're allowed to your own opinions and discuss them, but what you're doing is just regurgitating an opinion and trying to use THAT as a fact that should somehow persuade people.
Why is it that militants like you ever think that'll work in a discussion where you can't use pressure or force is beyond me.
I've lived around animals all my file, even my SO grew up on a farm. Why on earth do you (or anyone) think they experience thoughts, emotions and relationships in a human way?
Simply because we have similarities does not equate that animals experience things the same way. We know this because we have a better understanding of what goes on in a more limited human brain (be it a child or neurodivergent) compared to a healthy adult one.
I frankly compare this humanization of animals as a sign of not having sufficiently worked and lived with animals, with apophenia/pareidolia playing a large role.
Maybe also depends on what the animals are used to. As someone who grew up in the alps with free roaming cows, these are some clever animals. They definitly know what they are allowed to and what not, they have character differences, etc. The frolicking they do when they are let out in spring is not something you would forget.
If you look at cows who never where outside you the same nuanced behavior isn't that easy to spot, they become much more dull and complacent.
I grew up with animals and I would definitely say they have feelings. Of course it is hard to say how deep those go, or how refined they are and whether they are comparable to human feelings, but there are clear similarities: cows get afraid in bad weather or when they see something they don't know, a mother cow will be proud and protective over their calf, some will be mischiefous and ashamed once you catch them doing something they shouldn't do. That is not nothing. Sure inside that cow could be a complex Rube Goldberg machine that makes it look like fear, pride or shame to us silly humans, but given that we are both mammals evolutionary more likely is that these emotions are at least somewhat similar because they served similar purposes. What cows think is a much harder question. They are surprisingly clever if they think no one is around (and they have a very, very good sense for that).
>Why on earth do you (or anyone) think they experience thoughts, emotions and relationships in a human way?
GP poster did not use the qualifier "in a human way". Take that away, and it's really hard to argue that animals do not experience thoughts, emotions and relationships. If you say otherwise, it makes it really hard to believe that you lived around animals all your life.
Maybe we should be asking "do humans feel emotions in a bovine way". And the answer would be an unsurprising no, so why should one spend any time stating and disproving the converse. Animals do not have to feel in a human way for their feelings to be valid. That does not make killing them and torturing them any less barbaric. And we can be humane in our treatment of animals regardless of what importance we give to their feelings. Cat and dog owners will tell you their pets have feelings. Numerous studies on pigs show they are more clever than dogs. Do they somehow have to develop humanlike emotions to count?
The difference becomes important though when deciding where the line of 'torture' or 'barbarism' starts or ends. If you'd ask certain people, the act of castrating lambs with bands is barbaric.
I brought up neurodivergence before, but we have clear proof of situations where even non-healthy brains caused a clear difference on how that line can sometimes be interpreted. A very simple example is extremely repetitive work. Same goes for children.
Yeah but throughout a lot of western philosophy animals have been seen as totally incapable of feeling and thought. I had a philosophy professor (a year before his retirement) who was proclaiming just that.
As someone who also has visited seminars in ethics and animal ethics I will now recite the train of thought of Prof. Fink from Oxford:
That is obviously bullshit. Animals have feelings and thought (and we have the behavioral studies to show this to some degree). Yet we are not in a pixar movie and the animals don't have human-like interior worlds — but that doesn't mean they don't have their own variants that could be deep and rich in their own ways (or not, who knows).
Ethically the question for everyone of us is: Given a being that is very likely to experience feelings and though; given we don't know how deep the inner world of that being is — what is the right way to treat such a being? Do we assume it won't notice anything and treat it accordingly? Or do we side with caution and treat it carefully till we know more?
Of course to make things even more complicated the society we live in (in the form of previous generations) has made some of those choices for us already. So it might seem more normal to treat animals as if they have no feelings, because that is what we grew up with. But just because our ancestors did it that way doesn't mean it is ethically the right thing to do. Especially since we, unlike our ancestors, life in a world where survival without eating meat is not only possible, but doesn't come with huge downsides.
Many would say we are allowed to herd, hold and slaughter animals because we are more intelligent than them, and because they lack the inner life. But if an alien race or an AI came by that was more intelligent than us and had a richer inner life, wouldn't they then be right to do the same to us? Ethical systems should be universally applicable, not just when it suits us.
One could make all of this less complicated by ditching right and wrong and just asking who is stronger. But that isn't the kind of thinking that built the societies whose fruits we are all enjoying in the form of working division of labour, developed technologies, etc.
From a cold utilitarian POV, ideas of justice and equity only need to be applied to those wo will, do, did, or might contribute to the common good (and the ones emotionally close to these), and would not do that if they weren't well treated. That is not the case for animals.
In fact, that is, I believe, a pretty good description of how things are. The treatment of animals will improve, if it does, by moving into the "emotionally close" group.
There is a lot going on in what constitutes "common good" here. The standard "ethical" vegan position would contend that the happiness of animals count among intrinsic common good.
I meant a definition of "common good" from, again, a cold utilitarian POV - providing goods and services (but including decidedly social ones like child bearing, taking care of the elderly and such)
That's not what's commonly understood by utilitarianism, by the way. If said activity to render goods and services does not result in increased total happiness or average happiness, after factoring in externalities, many utilitarians do not consider that a "good" activity.
(via Wikipedia) for example, Bentham, the first formulator of says that utility is
> That property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness ... [or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.
but the question is open as to whether or not the happiness of animals is included in it. So just as exploitation of many to a great degree for services like a relatively small increase in comfort of few (as in chattel slavery) would be negative utility for Bentham, the suffering of animals for food would be considered negative utility to the utilitarian animal rights advocate.
