Veganism

  On 7/10/2019 at 5:40 PM, MIXL2 said:

na this one I don't think is as easy to break as we have gone trough over and over.. easier way to attack it is that you'd have to admit that your morals are not based off suffering at all which most ppl (including brian since this is where his "consious hypocrisy" comes from) aren't comfortable with

I don't see how this relates to a refutation attempt of the social contract refutation of veganism.  Why do I have to admit that?  And I can't admit that because it's not true.  They are based partly on the unnecessary creation of suffering for hedonistic purposes, partly on the lack of environmental sustainability of factory farming, and partly on the lack of multi-planetary scaling of such a system (you'd need to grow plants which don't require grazing pastures or much space, and which are much more efficient)

  On 7/10/2019 at 7:32 PM, brian trageskin said:

i didn't say ethics is a non-topic, i said you don't have the authority to decide whether people should feel guilty or not for eating meat. your opinion is not based on undebatable concepts.

I didn't say ethics is a non-topic, i said you don't have the authority to decide whether people should feel guilty or not for torturing and killing humans. your opinion is not based on undebatable concepts

Everything is always debatable but I've yet to see any decent refutations

Also I never said you have to feel guilty about it.  That's not something that can be mandated.  Only that you shouldn't do it.

  On 7/10/2019 at 5:21 PM, Zeffolia said:

I think you're taking my posts too personally.  I guess I called you lukewarm useless in a past post, but I don't really remember this or associate any negativity to you.  It would have only been a reply to a stance you took.  And if people shut down that's their fault, I'm sure some Nazis shut down when confronted about concentration camps.

it was a reply to me calling your attitude itt obnoxious, there was literally no other stance or context. you just went off and assumed all sorts of shit lol

anyway, next time i see someone order a burger ill make sure to shout HEY YOU NAZI MOTHERFUCKER CMERE I WANNA TELL YOU ABOUT VEGANISM! and if they walk away I'll just remember its their fault they didn't get the message, not mine

  On 7/10/2019 at 7:27 PM, Zeffolia said:

You're just making up these terms and stating them as if they're real.  What is "double standard politics" and why does it justify eating meat?  Are you seriously still saying as long as you ignore something in your mind it's not real anymore?  The qualia of these suffering animals are real even if they are physically inaccessible to us, just as yours are real.

i didn't say those issues weren't real, i said their reality is limited to those who invest in them. nothing we can universally agree upon.

double standard politics is basically discrimination. you don't even need to justify it people accept it (which is currently the case with meat consumption). hence 'arbitrary'.

  On 7/10/2019 at 7:35 PM, Zeffolia said:

Only that you shouldn't do it.

and you failed at giving reasonable arguments as to why i shouldn't. i guess i'm too much of a 3rd reich admirer to be convinced by you.

  On 7/10/2019 at 7:32 PM, Zeffolia said:

  On 7/10/2019 at 5:40 PM, MIXL2 said:

na this one I don't think is as easy to break as we have gone trough over and over.. easier way to attack it is that you'd have to admit that your morals are not based off suffering at all which most ppl (including brian since this is where his "consious hypocrisy" comes from) aren't comfortable with

I don't see how this relates to a refutation attempt of the social contract refutation of veganism.  Why do I have to admit that?  And I can't admit that because it's not true.  They are based partly on the unnecessary creation of suffering for hedonistic purposes, partly on the lack of environmental sustainability of factory farming, and partly on the lack of multi-planetary scaling of such a system (you'd need to grow plants which don't require grazing pastures or much space, and which are much more efficient)

Expand  

sorry you misunderstood me, I meant that whoever holds the social contract position must admit that their morals aren't based on suffering at all (so replace you'd with they'd maybe would have been clearer)

What Zeffolia said about the killing wasn't so much an attack as a simple statement of an implication of that view. You know something's got to suck when simply describing it comes across as an attack.

By the way I think there are a number of ethical theories outside of the classical hedonistic utilitarianism that aren't "based on suffering" but stay away from the pain-pleasure continuum yet arrive at pretty reasonable conclusions.

The danger with moral discussions like these is that at some point they might feel like some intellectual game/pastime in which it's about to win or to be right. But in fact this is a very serious topic. It's literally about life and death. Animal lives are taken in an extend and at a speed incomprehensible to our minds everyday in a miserable way, it's very sad. Why does the moral discussion take place now and not before we installed the machinery?

  On 7/10/2019 at 8:14 PM, MIXL2 said:

sorry you misunderstood me, I meant that whoever holds the social contract position must admit that their morals aren't based on suffering at all (so replace you'd with they'd maybe would have been clearer)

Oh yeah that makes more sense now.  It's indeed social contract theory proponents who would be making the claim that morals aren't based on suffering but instead something else, which based on my understanding is just a game theoretical scenario of applying or not applying force.

  On 7/10/2019 at 7:37 PM, luke viia said:

it was a reply to me calling your attitude itt obnoxious, there was literally no other stance or context. you just went off and assumed all sorts of shit lol

 

anyway, next time i see someone order a burger ill make sure to shout HEY YOU NAZI MOTHERFUCKER CMERE I WANNA TELL YOU ABOUT VEGANISM! and if they walk away I'll just remember its their fault they didn't get the message, not mine

Expand  

I agree that I maybe overreacted to your post in particular in comparison to others I responded to, and I take back any personal attacks I made.  They were made towards abstract people, using your post as a springboard, rather than really at you.  And that it probably wouldn't be very helpful to do what you described, but let's just remember that one could make an argument that the Nazis literally caused less suffering than the factory farm industry causes worldwide each year.

  On 7/10/2019 at 9:43 PM, brian trageskin said:

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

Such a funny little meme image with a text caption

Spoiler: NSFW slaughterhouse image

  On 7/10/2019 at 8:28 PM, darreichungsform said:

The danger with moral discussions like these is that at some point they might feel like some intellectual game/pastime in which it's about to win or to be right. But in fact this is a very serious topic. It's literally about life and death. Animal lives are taken in an extend and at a speed incomprehensible to our minds everyday in a miserable way, it's very sad. Why does the moral discussion take place now and not before we installed the machinery?

I mean you have to substantiate all of the assumptions here to convince people like why should we care about animal lives? etc and people disagree on things and so...

  On 7/10/2019 at 8:18 PM, manmower said:

What Zeffolia said about the killing wasn't so much an attack as a simple statement of an implication of that view. You know something's got to suck when simply describing it comes across as an attack.

By the way I think there are a number of ethical theories outside of the classical hedonistic utilitarianism that aren't "based on suffering" but stay away from the pain-pleasure continuum yet arrive at pretty reasonable conclusions.

I mean thats the definition of "attacking" moral positions.. is by pushing them to hypothetical examples, in this case most mentally challenged people would still be able to reciprocate I think, if we push for a person who can't and will never be able to reciprocate we end up with a psychopath or a person in a vegetative state and here killing becomes morally neutral according to this position.

From what I can see it does seem to be a consistent position for meat-eating, it just means that you do not care about suffering per se at all. (which, i repeat is a great way to make people go vegan.. you can't eat meat and care about the suffering of animals simultaneously!)

edit: so if images like that one ^ make you feel bad you are being inconsistent if you eat meat!

  On 7/10/2019 at 9:58 PM, MIXL2 said:

I mean you have to substantiate all of the assumptions here to convince people like why should we care about animal lives? etc and people disagree on things and so...

People that you have to convince that animal lives are something to at least consider being of any importance are already lost and pretty rare (and probably in need of therapy). Most people do care for what happens to animals at least if they can see it with their own eyes.

But meat eating is such a habit and deep-rooted in our societies that it's not easy at all to not eat meat even for disciplined people. And even if all the people who think that meat shouldn't be eaten because of animal suffering stopped eating meat, they couldn't impact the meat industry in the ways they would want. Which means that the issue can't be tackled in people's private lives only. It must be tackled by legislators in that meat produced in inhumane ways must be abolished

  On 7/10/2019 at 10:22 PM, darreichungsform said:

People that you have to convince that animal lives are something to at least consider being of any importance are already lost and pretty rare (and probably in need of therapy). Most people do care for what happens to animals at least if they can see it with their own eyes.

But meat eating is such a habit and deep-rooted in our societies that it's not easy at all to not eat meat even for disciplined people. And even if all the people who think that meat shouldn't be eaten because of animal suffering stopped eating meat, they couldn't impact the meat industry in the ways they would want. Which means that the issue can't be tackled in people's private lives only. It must be tackled by legislators in that meat produced in inhumane ways must be abolished

Expand  

Agreed, I don't think that will happen though since nobody would vote for those politicians, so the next best option is for companies like Beyond Meat to keep pushing and try to get tasty alternatives that even the meat eaters like, and eventually make them cheaper than normal meat so that it becomes the default.  And for vegans to proselytize.  I've already converted like 4 people to start drinking almond milk instead of cow milk, which isn't that amazing but it's a start and I didn't even have to try, I just showed them it and let them try it

edit: we had this talk before, nevermind.

  On 7/10/2019 at 9:58 PM, MIXL2 said:

I mean thats the definition of "attacking" moral positions.. is by pushing them to hypothetical examples, in this case most mentally challenged people would still be able to reciprocate I think, if we push for a person who can't and will never be able to reciprocate we end up with a psychopath or a person in a vegetative state and here killing becomes morally neutral according to this position.

From what I can see it does seem to be a consistent position for meat-eating, it just means that you do not care about suffering per se at all. (which, i repeat is a great way to make people go vegan.. you can't eat meat and care about the suffering of animals simultaneously!)

edit: so if images like that one ^ make you feel bad you are being inconsistent if you eat meat!

Expand  

People with a definitive IQ of < 20 who are dumber than a pig exist, there is nothing hypothetical about them. And I'm thoroughly convinced it shouldn't matter what "most" mentally challenged people can or can't do–because that's another dangerous door to open.

  On 7/10/2019 at 10:25 PM, Zeffolia said:

Agreed, I don't think that will happen though since nobody would vote for those politicians, so the next best option is for companies like Beyond Meat to keep pushing and try to get tasty alternatives that even the meat eaters like, and eventually make them cheaper than normal meat so that it becomes the default.  

100% agree that better tasting meat alternatives are one of the strongest ways IMO to get people to stop or reduce their meat consumption. The moral/ethical/philosophical arguments are too much for most folks, but if something tastes good and is cheaper, then that's what I think will make an impact. Just the fact that a lot of traditional meat companies (e.g. Maple Leaf Foods) are buying into the meatless market and fast food places are rolling out meat alternative options is a positive start.

  On 7/10/2019 at 10:22 PM, darreichungsform said:

  On 7/10/2019 at 9:58 PM, MIXL2 said:

I mean you have to substantiate all of the assumptions here to convince people like why should we care about animal lives? etc and people disagree on things and so...

People that you have to convince that animal lives are something to at least consider being of any importance are already lost and pretty rare (and probably in need of therapy). Most people do care for what happens to animals at least if they can see it with their own eyes.

Expand  

yea I have said before if  you concede that animal suffering should be reduced then there's no argument against going vegan.

the burger fred isn't like this, it's just "whoah, i'm gonna eat the ass out of this thing", which is a compliment to burgers because usually they're pretty gross, that distilled nitrite yellow che3ese makes me want to chunder

is milking cows unethical? what about butter, i mean, have you seen the way Merkins slather their popcorn with pints of that ridiculous shit, and it's not even real butter, just this salty dairy-fat slime, not to mention all their biblical level sins against bread

what was the question again

well I'm drinking a fabulous gin and tonic with lime

not a dead beast in sight, that's my kind of veganism 

G&T for breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper!

*shakes hands*

Swatted and killed a fly at work today, it was buzzing hard around my face and was asking for it. Sorry.

Did you eat it afterwards?

Always

Burger King now has Impossible Whoppers at every location.  I tried it and it was really good (within the context of fast food junk).  What's good about this one is that it's reasonably thin, and grilled, with a sort of grilled flavor.  I actually had to double check my receipt to make sure it wasn't normal meat.  Really the only giveaway was the smell, it had a distinctive Impossible Meat smell which is hard to explain.  Overall it's just as good as a real meat burger and I bet lots of meat eaters would be fooled.  I suggest trying it since Burger King is so widespread, and supporting mass market vegan options (make sure to order it without mayo which contains eggs)

Zeff, please tell me you were held hostage and were forced to choose between various bad choices. 

I must say I'd be surprised if veganists even buy anything at a fast-food enterprise like Burger King. If you consider what they're responsible of for doing to animals, throwing any money at such an enterprise should be a no go.

Also, as a non-veganist I must say their ways of doing business trouble me. And when it comes to their burgers, I've rarely had the idea they were using actual meat to begin with. Usually it tastes like some highly engineered substance which is supposed to give people the impression it's a burger, but in reality...well, I'm fairly sure these companies optimize their products for profit. So I'm guessing a lower % of actual (expensive) meat is already business as usual. And people are easily manipulated anyways, so why not? ( McDonalds is worse in this aspect, I believe)

Now, the people from the commercial department of said company found a growing market in the veganist community, so they had to re-engineer their non-food into something which is more in line with what that market wants (and accepts!?). And it would probably help in other markets as well, because they can sell the appearance of being involved in topics like health, climate and the well being of animals. Even though it's still junk food and they're still mostly in the business of selling "meat" burgers on a massive scale. Go figure.

If there was one thing I would appreciate in a veganist, it's the awareness of the origins of the food they eat. It matters to them. Or it should, I guess. I find it hard to believe they'd put their critical thinking aside when such a company tries to sell them burgers without meat.