Veganism

  On 3/30/2019 at 1:06 PM, mokz said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:07 AM, Zeffolia said:

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 11:57 AM, Zeffolia said:

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Who chooses the morals?

 

Zeffolia

  On 3/30/2019 at 1:08 PM, darreichungsform said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 1:06 PM, mokz said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

 

Who chooses the morals?

 

Zeffolia

yes

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:50 PM, darreichungsform said:

Forcing the meat industry to provide the animals a good life before killing them doesn't sound that authoritarian to me.

I would totally like to become a masseur for cows or a professional in pig entertainment

I hear that's pretty much how it's done in Japan for Kobe beef / wagyu. The cows have soft sand to walk on, given regular massages, and even given beer, almost as if they're at a holiday resort. Of course the end product isn't cheap either.

  On 3/30/2019 at 4:53 PM, ambermonk said:

I hear that's pretty much how it's done in Japan for Kobe beef / wagyu. The cows have soft sand to walk on, given regular massages, and even given beer, almost as if they're at a holiday resort. Of course the end product isn't cheap either.

who said those are ideal conditions for cows? :^)

http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/uploads/journals/17/AB&C_2017_Vol4(4)_Marino_Allen.pdf

  Quote

Abstract - Domestic cows (Bos taurus) are consumed worldwide as beef and veal, kept as dairy product producers,

employed as draft animals in labor, and are used for a long list of other products, including leather and manure. But despite global reliance on cows for thousands of years, most people’s perception of them is as plodding herd animals with little individual personality and very simple social relationships or preferences. Yet, a review of the scientific literature on cow behavior points to more complex cognitive, emotional and social characteristics. Moreover, when cow behavior is addressed, it is almost entirely done within the framework of and applied to their use as food commodities. Therefore, there is relatively little attention to the study of cow intelligence, personality and sociality at a basic comparative level.

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:06 PM, sweepstakes said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:59 AM, tec said:

I ain’t reading the last pages but Bulk, it’s worth remembering that every point you make will have been made to every vegetarian and vegan countless times at most social occasions they attend. It can be very tedious.

True. When I was vegan for a while, my diet suddenly became everyone's business. It wasn't like I was yelling about the evils of meat, I would just, like, not eat meat/dairy/eggs, and suddenly I would find myself in an attempted ad hoc intervention.

 

Yeah I can definitely see how annoying that would be. 

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:02 PM, sweepstakes said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:59 AM, Stickfigger said:

StephenG and Zeffolia's last dying thoughts "I wish I spent more time in the veganism thread"...

lol

 

lol - I have a week off from school so I don't know what to do with my time!

I'm still maintaining a predominantly vegan diet myself. But realistically I don't think the "purist" approach will work out in the long run. I'll still have to compromise in social dining occasions if I want to avoid any awkwardness, especially if someone goes out of their way to barbecue or home cook a meaty meal. I'd rather blend in than have to explain myself.

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:50 PM, darreichungsform said:

Forcing the meat industry to provide the animals a good life before killing them doesn't sound that authoritarian to me.

I would totally like to become a masseur for cows or a professional in pig entertainment

It's literally not going to happen, there is no way to give all of the cows lots of space and personal massages while still maintaining an economy of this scale.  The only way is remove consumption and therefore production

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:07 AM, Zeffolia said:

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 11:57 AM, Zeffolia said:

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

 

Okay so are you okay with people killing and eating you?

The same people who claim moral relativism on animal slaughter very often aren't okay with it on any other issue, like human slaughter or issues related to any of their other political beliefs.  It tends to be a psychological defense mechanism more than a legitimate intellectual argument, but if this isn't the case for you then feel free to elaborate on your viewpoints and how various atrocities are okay in your eyes.

I feel like pigs would like stand up comedy and polka music 

In my experience pigs aren’t too different to dogs, fucks me off when people adore one whilst eating the other.

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:47 PM, Zeffolia said:

The same people who claim moral relativism on animal slaughter very often aren't okay with it on any other issue, like human slaughter or issues related to any of their other political beliefs.  It tends to be a psychological defense mechanism more than a legitimate intellectual argument, but if this isn't the case for you then feel free to elaborate on your viewpoints and how various atrocities are okay in your eyes.

Because ethics does not work like a game of logic? 

It's each easier to accept that you shouldn't kill humans because almost every human on earth will agree with you. The sanctity of human life is much much more universally accepted ethic than animal rights. Basically all major religions say human life is sacred. All secular societies have laws codifying that private citizens shouldn't kill each other, government mandated killing is another thing. And also the reason why one would support not killing humans? Well, you don't want yourself or your family or friends to be killed do you? Would you want to live in a society where you might get butchered yourself?

Also thinking from the evolutionary point of view I would suspect that the survival of your own DNA or the closest possible copy, that means your children, family and in more general terms species gets way prioritized over survival of any other species. It's probably encoded in our brains that survival of our own kind comes first. That's what made species survive better, not eating your neighbors but the animals in the forest.

As for the political beliefs for me I think they're mostly just practical. I don't want to live in a society of constant competition for survival. I want to have a safety net if I become seriously ill or unemployed. I don't want people robbing me just to be able to buy food. In general my political beliefs are just for making the society safer and more harmonious so living for me is also easier and less frightening.

  On 3/31/2019 at 4:08 AM, mokz said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:47 PM, Zeffolia said:

The same people who claim moral relativism on animal slaughter very often aren't okay with it on any other issue, like human slaughter or issues related to any of their other political beliefs.  It tends to be a psychological defense mechanism more than a legitimate intellectual argument, but if this isn't the case for you then feel free to elaborate on your viewpoints and how various atrocities are okay in your eyes.

 

Because ethics does not work like a game of logic? 

 

It's each easier to accept that you shouldn't kill humans because almost every human on earth will agree with you. The sanctity of human life is much much more universally accepted ethic than animal rights. Basically all major religions say human life is sacred. All secular societies have laws codifying that private citizens shouldn't kill each other, government mandated killing is another thing. And also the reason why one would support not killing humans? Well, you don't want yourself or your family or friends to be killed do you? Would you want to live in a society where you might get butchered yourself?

 

Also thinking from the evolutionary point of view I would suspect that the survival of your own DNA or the closest possible copy, that means your children, family and in more general terms species gets way prioritized over survival of any other species. It's probably encoded in our brains that survival of our own kind comes first. That's what made species survive better, not eating your neighbors but the animals in the forest.

 

Not sure what the point of this post is, are you trying to say ethics only exists when it's maintained by practicality i.e. fitting in with your society?

  On 3/31/2019 at 4:23 AM, mokz said:

As for the political beliefs for me I think they're mostly just practical. I don't want to live in a society of constant competition for survival. I want to have a safety net if I become seriously ill or unemployed. I don't want people robbing me just to be able to buy food. In general my political beliefs are just for making the society safer and more harmonious so living for me is also easier and less frightening.

What about for others?  For animals?

  On 3/30/2019 at 6:12 PM, ambermonk said:

I'd rather blend in than have to explain myself.

boc forum is thattaway

  On 3/31/2019 at 6:02 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 3/31/2019 at 4:08 AM, mokz said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:47 PM, Zeffolia said:

The same people who claim moral relativism on animal slaughter very often aren't okay with it on any other issue, like human slaughter or issues related to any of their other political beliefs.  It tends to be a psychological defense mechanism more than a legitimate intellectual argument, but if this isn't the case for you then feel free to elaborate on your viewpoints and how various atrocities are okay in your eyes.

 

Because ethics does not work like a game of logic? 

 

It's each easier to accept that you shouldn't kill humans because almost every human on earth will agree with you. The sanctity of human life is much much more universally accepted ethic than animal rights. Basically all major religions say human life is sacred. All secular societies have laws codifying that private citizens shouldn't kill each other, government mandated killing is another thing. And also the reason why one would support not killing humans? Well, you don't want yourself or your family or friends to be killed do you? Would you want to live in a society where you might get butchered yourself?

 

Also thinking from the evolutionary point of view I would suspect that the survival of your own DNA or the closest possible copy, that means your children, family and in more general terms species gets way prioritized over survival of any other species. It's probably encoded in our brains that survival of our own kind comes first. That's what made species survive better, not eating your neighbors but the animals in the forest.

 

 

Not sure what the point of this post is, are you trying to say ethics only exists when it's maintained by practicality i.e. fitting in with your society?

  On 3/31/2019 at 4:23 AM, mokz said:

As for the political beliefs for me I think they're mostly just practical. I don't want to live in a society of constant competition for survival. I want to have a safety net if I become seriously ill or unemployed. I don't want people robbing me just to be able to buy food. In general my political beliefs are just for making the society safer and more harmonious so living for me is also easier and less frightening.

 

What about for others?  For animals?

 

Yes, I guess if you want to co-exist with most of humanity you need to not kill people because otherwise you will be dead pretty soon yourself. I think that's a pretty practical reason to not go around killing. The rules to not kill each other are the basis of the society to not let it slip into violent chaos.

Animal rights are more abstract notion because it doesn't directly influence my well-being but being less cruel to animals would make the society less cruel also to humans I would think. So, in the long run it would be better to be nice to animals as well. But that's why I think something like veganism in global scale is still way off in the future. It's very hard to try to convince someone in China to take animal rights seriously when they see human rights trampled on an industrial scale, possibly themselves being the victim.

Besides the ethics there is empathy that I feel towards living creatures and fellow humans. I would feel horrible torturing any sentient being or killing humans. Frankly probably couldn't live with myself after that. But it's not the same as ethics. Ethics is an abstract idea. Empathy is an emotion, very biological.

"Fertilizers from ground animal bones"

Awesome, vegetables literally grow from processed bone marrow

Mops up bacon sarnie ketchup drips from plate,

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  On 3/31/2019 at 5:16 PM, cwmbrancity said:

Mops up bacon sarnie ketchup drips from plate,

 

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

fuck off you unfunny retard

you tell him Launch

I once read about weird jobs, and there was one guy who was a Turkey Defrustrator.  He literally had to chill Turkey's out before their demise.

Not quite sure how he achieved this though.  Perhaps Mindfullness classes?

  On 3/30/2019 at 8:30 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 12:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

 

Okay so are you okay with people killing and eating you?

your argument is based on the premise that killing a living being in order to transform it into an edible commodity is inherently wrong. i certainly disagree with that.

now, while i'm not ok with the way our society breeds animals and slaughers them on an industrial scale, i find it a lesser evil than human exploitation for example, which directly threatens me. i personally believe that life's fundamentally unfair and violent, survival of the fittest/self-preservation instinct and all, so all the ethics in the world doesn't matter much in my eyes when thought in absolute terms. while on a personal level i may respect and value other life forms than humans, i'm aware of the unfairness and double standards inherent to life, which prevents me from condemning humans for killing animals. 

i'm more disturbed by the moral implications of profit-making from the exploitation of animal suffering but that has more to do with economics than ethics imo. if one benefits more from neglecting animals than taking good care of them, needless suffering is inevitable. 

do i contribute to the suffering of animals by buying their meat? i do.

does that fact stop me from continuing to do so? it doesn't because i have double standards, like all living beings.

  Quote

your argument is based on the premise that killing a living being in order to transform it into an edible commodity is inherently wrong. i certainly disagree with that.

what's there to disagree with? maybe if there was no alternative it would be a more difficult issue, you'd have to consider which life is more important, yours or some other being's. but when there's a clear alternative that ideally doesn't involve anyone's suffering, then what argument are you left with? that you simply don't care enough?

I pointed out an issue w that parallel a few pages back in that animals don't have the same access to agency as humans

edit: nobody has really responded to that point.. or did I miss it?

I had an Impossible burger yesterday. Wow, definitely blows the majority of veggie patty burgers out of the water. There was a moment where I thought, did they screw up my order and give me a beef burger instead? Really hard to tell the different taste wise. Read this morning that burger king is going to begin rolling Impossible whoppers out to select markets, and hopefully nationwide later.