EPTSpecie-cism and veganism - Page 9
| Blogs > Tony Campolo |
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
EDIT: I feel like maybe I owe a little more explanation.We'll put it this way: if this thread were on the side of the road, I wouldn't poke it with a stick. What Chef and I are talking about with this Saechiis fellow is not even veganism. We're talking about how non-vegans find it offensive to be compared to sexists and racists.Saechiis seems to think no such comparison ever took place. So that's the discussion that the veganism discussion devolved to. But then it devolved again recently because Saechiis insists on arguing by endless quoting. So now Chef and I are just trying to communicate to him that arguing like that is obnoxious. It's your run-of-the-mill clusterfuck. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:But then it devolved again recently because Saechiis insists on arguing by endless quoting. So now Chef and I are just trying to communicate to him that arguing like that is obnoxious. I think everyone, from all walks of life, should be able to agree on this one thing. Although frankly I wish people would spend less time taking offense and more time wondering if the person being offensive has a point. The point in this case being that people who are comfortable with eating meat are displaying the same sort of attitude slave owners would have displayed 500 years ago upon being told that owning slaves is wrong. Or upon being told that women should have the vote. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks eating meat is as wrong as owning slaves or denying women the vote. (Although some do.) | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
So bearing this in mind - what steps are you willing to take to reduce their suffering? Is it OK to continue drinking their milk - when you know that for the milk to arrive in your bottle, a baby calf was likely to have been taken away from its mother to be slaughtered, so that they wouldn't drink the milk? Is it OK that the mother cow has her life reduced from an average span of 20 or so years to five because she is constantly milked until she is no longer considered productive, and then sent to slaughter after a life of slavery? Do you propose doing anything to improve their conditions? | ||
|
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
 . | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:47 Tony Campolo wrote: For those attacking the OP... I note you've all ignored the most significant part, which is where I share the life of a dairy cow. Those are actually NZ facts, it's worse in larger countries such as the US where cows are kept in stalls. So bearing this in mind - what steps are you willing to take to reduce their suffering? Is it OK to continue drinking their milk - when you know that for the milk to arrive in your bottle, a baby calf was likely to have been taken away from its mother to be slaughtered, so that they wouldn't drink the milk? Is it OK that the mother cow has her life reduced from an average span of 20 or so years to five because she is constantly milked until she is no longer considered productive, and then sent to slaughter after a life of slavery? Do you propose doing anything to improve their conditions? I'll repost: + Show Spoiler + On February 10 2011 05:31 Tony Campolo wrote: So the last thread got closed 'cos I didn't put enough effort into the OP. Yet I didn't have the chance to respond to the replies because it was like 12am in NZ. Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest. Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights. First of all, I do support human rights and am actively involved with charities that help the poor (e.g. sponsoring children, volunteering my time for community groups that help the homeless). Coming from an ex-Christian background, I've dedicated more of my time to helping human rights than animal rights. Chances are those that attack vegans for not supporting human rights are less likely to be involved in any active charitable work themselves, as most people that give their time to various causes know how disrespective it is to have someone attack your cause as being less worthy than another's. Secondly, supporting animal rights takes nothing away from human rights. All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. Thirdly, what it comes down to is what is ethical. Animals may not be as intelligent as us - but that doesn't mean they feel less pain. This is evidenced both physically and mentally. An extract from my personal blog: In addition to having distinct personalities, cows are very intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time. Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They have complex emotions as well and even have the ability to worry about the future. Researchers have found that cows can not only figure out problems, they also enjoy the challenge and get excited when they find a solution. In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had to find how to open a door to get some food. The researchers then measured their brainwaves. Professor Broom said that ‘The brainwaves showed the cows excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment,’ Cows can also learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirty or press a button with their head to release food when they’re hungry. Like humans they quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain like electric fences. In fact if just one cow in the herd is shocked by an electric fence, the rest of the herd will learn from that and will avoid the fence in the future. Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but one cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never communicated to her daughter again. Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members. Dairy cows are continually kept pregnant and lactating and their babies are sold off to the meat industry when they are only two days old. The life of a dairy cow is not as natural as you might think, especially considering that 80 percent of dairy cows are made pregnant through artificial insemination. The only way for a cow, like any other mammal, to produce milk is for the cow to have a baby. The milk produced by cows is naturally meant for baby calves; however, because people want to drink this milk, the baby calves are taken away from their mothers when they are only a few days old. Cows are extremely maternal animals and both the mother cow and the baby calf suffer terribly from being separated at such a young age. In fact, one cow missed her baby so much that she broke out of her paddock and trekked through 8 kilometers of paddocks and rivers to find her baby. On dairy farms, mother cows can be heard bellowing out wildly trying to find their babies as well as running after the cattle trucks that take their babies to separate farms. The baby calves life is then decided by their gender. That’s right, not only is the dairy industry hell for the animals, the environment and your health, it is also an industry that decides an animal’s entire life based on whether they are male or female. If the calve is male then he is taken away to be raised and slaughtered for meat. Because of this the NZ dairy industry contributes to the death of more than 1 million male dairy cows every year. That’s one death every 20 seconds. In fact, 55 percent of all beef in New Zealand supermarkets comes directly from the dairy industry. These male calves are transported to separate meat farms where they will never see their mothers again. They suffer terribly on their journey to the meat farm. Transported as young as 4 days of age, they endure cold and hunger, without food for up to 30 hours, while struggling to maintain their footing in the cattle truck. However if the calf is female she is raised as a dairy cow, living in the same conditions as her mothers. She too will live in a cycle of pregnancy and lactation, being forced to give birth to a baby calf each year, only to have that baby torn away from her within a few days. In the wild cows can live to be up to 25 years old. But on dairy farms they are slaughtered when they are only 8-10 years old meaning that most dairy cows live less than half their natural life span. Because dairy cows are milked so excessively, NZ dairy cows have increased risks of teat diseases like mastitis. When a cow has mastitis her udder may become so inflamed that it is as hard as a stone, and blood bubbles into her milk, which becomes clotted and watery. Severe cases of mastitis can kill a cow in less than a day. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights. Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false. Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way. Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action. My question: Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not? I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree. So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living? | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:35 Robstickle wrote: I think everyone, from all walks of life, should be able to agree on this one thing. Although frankly I wish people would spend less time taking offense and more time wondering if the person being offensive has a point. The point in this case being that people who are comfortable with eating meat are displaying the same sort of attitude slave owners would have displayed 500 years ago upon being told that owning slaves is wrong. Or upon being told that women should have the vote. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks eating meat is as wrong as owning slaves or denying women the vote. (Although some do.) Actually, not all walks of life would be able to agree on that: a lion, for example, would not comprehend rhetorical obnoxiousness nor would that lion comprehend the rights supposedly afforded to it by liberalism and the exegesis thereof. By definition, nature has no intrinsic rights; that's a human thing, a byproduct of civilization. As for the rest of your post, you can't have your rhetorical meat and not eat it. What mitigates the cultivation and stewardship (or "cruelty" or "slavery," depending on where you stand in this debate) of animals to make it less wrong than slavery or sexism? Considering that were sheep or cows released into the wild en masse they would remain as likely to die violent deaths as they would in captivity, what is the ethical decision here? N.B. Millennia of human domestication has bred all the fight out of sheep and cows. On February 13 2011 09:47 Tony Campolo wrote: For those attacking the OP... I note you've all ignored the most significant part, which is where I share the life of a dairy cow. Those are actually NZ facts, it's worse in larger countries such as the US where cows are kept in stalls. It was all cry-me-a-river pathos. I saw Unser täglich Brot. I know, I know, I know. And look, I haven't eaten foie gras, and I don't ever intend to. But it is disingenuous for you to claim that cows experience their lives with the same cultural associations as human beings do, and to use the language of human-to-human violent interaction (e.g. oppression, slavery) to codify the human-to-animal interaction demeans the former and misunderstands the latter. Reductio ad absurdum, your rhetorical style suggests it is sad that the baby calf cannot grow up at its mother's teat and get a Law degree at Yale. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 13 2011 08:22 Chef wrote: While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it? While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue. I brought up OP since he's the person who started this thread, and the title of the thread says "specie-cism and veganism". I tried to explain that you can interpret his OP in two ways, a negative and a positive and that it all comes down to subjectiveness of people's judgement. Since everybody only replied to the sexism and racism part instead of the part OP intended to discuss, and since I couldn't convince anyone that OP wasn't just a bad person, I chose to direct the conversation away from what intentions we read behind his opening post to discuss the actual subject of the thread, which is specie-cism and veganism. I don't need to concede anything since no-one has proved anything, which is the problem with the subjectiveness of interpreting someone's intentions. As such I thought the thread would be better off if we left the whole debate of OP's mentioning of sexism and racism for what it was, since it doesn't relate to anything he wanted to discuss. It was a technicality that doesn't proof or disproof anyone, it just derails the thread and has led me through the neverending story of returning arguments one too many times to believe there's anything left to gain. For your second part, could you link me to the rules of internet etiquette? I've responded like that many times and have never gotten a complaint. If you thought it was insulting to go over every part of your post to respond to it and bold my response for readability, then why didn't you say so? When you quoted another post I had made in my history to point out my "tragically short memory" it somehow led me to believe that you were just ignoring my time-consuming response since it was too difficult and you just wanted to take a cheap shot. But since it's now clear to me that I was, in fact, the one insulting you, I shall remedy this by undoing my point for point bolding of quote style of reasoning and instead paste it all under the quote for readability. 1. It is discrimination, I'm just questioning whether it's warranted. And indeed, I'm not OP, so the "civil rights" and "nazi" comments don't make any sense in response to my post. 2. What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it. You're also making a personal judgement on what OP's intentions are. 3. What do you mean with "you"? I'm not OP and my post had nothing to do with human rights, hence the comment that it doesn't make sense. Also " I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument" ? Interpreting what other people are going to be thinking is not an argument, and it certainly doesn't give people the liberty to disregard OP's points, let alone not read it. There's also no worse way to begin an argument than bringing up Nazi's in an unrelated thread, I'm sure you're aware of Godwin's law. 4. 95% of posts have been attacking OP for "pushing his beliefs upon people" "being a hypocrit lettuce murderer" or "being pretentious". Yet no-one has quoted where he implies these things, leaving me to conclude that people are looking for things to be offended by. Yes, it is nearly impossible to address a controversial topic like the possibility of not eating meat without getting flamed, do you disagree? 5. As I said, it's only "clearly" provocative when you are looking for something to be offended by. He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you deny the truthness of this statement? Or were you too consumed by the controversial nature of the statement to see that it's actually a completely valid comparison? OP is putting specie-cism on the same page with sexism and racism since they're all forms of discrimination. When I say red, purple and yellow are colors, that doesn't imply you're all of the above or does it? Hence my sidenote that everyone can find offensiveness in a controversial post, even when it isn't intended. So I implied it might be in everyone's interests to not form entire arguments concerning OP's perceived insults and discuss the contents instead. 6. Your post had no contents that adressed mine, as such I'm going to comment on how your post makes no sense in reply to mine. You can hide behind the notion that I'm "bullying" in this thread, but it doesn't conceal that your post, like most, focuses completely on criticizing the OP for perceived insults to people eating meat, instead of attacking it's content. Kinda like an ... ad-hominem, how ironic. I never fantasized over "one day in the year 2050", that's why I'm asking you to read my post for what it says. Once again: "Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly. My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct." @Hulkmania: I couldn't really understand your post through the bolding and colours, but I managed to pick out a piece where you weren't really satisifed with my English. As such I propose we argue about veganism in Dutch, so I don't have to bother you with my weird words. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4170 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:02 Robstickle wrote: If you're going to cite statistics then actually link to them, don't copy them here and expect us to believe you. And just so you know, the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians Of Canada have found that a properly planned vegan diet is fine in all stages of life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028 Also I can find at least one vegan over the age of 100. + Show Spoiler + It's amazing what a quick google search will throw up. First one - it's a freaking quote from Ghandi..... You know, from after he and his 22 companions had to give up living vegan, because of the health problems they all developed..... Second one - http://naturalhygienesociety.org/dietsurvey.html Third one - He obviously missed that one (omg, missed one, therefore argument is invalid!!!!!), however, he says "After 30 years of research, I have no doubts that the foundation of a healthy diet should be fresh, raw, organically grown vegetables and fruits (and their juices), plus sprouts, nuts and seeds. Short-term, raw vegan diets offer enormous benefits in overcoming serious health problems. However, long-term physical and psychological deterioration will almost certainly occur unless animal foods such as eggs, fish or dairy products are consumed. Those who refuse to do this should supplement with B12 (methylcobalamin), folic acid and flax or hemp seeds. " Basically, though, he's been studying this type of thing for a long time, and having not come across a single vegan himself (or, at least one that was not always vegan) shows that there is some kind of negative correlation; not positive, as many people would like to believe. And, you realize that fortified foods are not that great of a substitute, right? A good example is the Vitamin D in milk - it's about enough to prevent rickets, but that's all..... The best way to actually get the nutrient into your system is to spend half an hour outdoors - you'll get something like 20 times the amount of Vitamin D from that..... A balanced diet is always preferred..... You know, you could actually eat some meat instead of having to fortify other foods, and take other suppliments instead..... And, even then, that may not be good enough. I was living with someone who had iron deficieny anemia, from some unknown cause. Oddly enough, switching to a diet with a larger amount of iron, or suppliments alone wasn't a good enough solution, he had to do both. He still struggles with that issue. He could not live comfortably with just suppliments and fortified foods..... So, yes, in principle a vegan or vegetarian diet is nice. It gets rid of a lot of health problems (obesity, high cholesterol, heart problems, etc). At the same time, it is not right for everyone. The same goes for a diet that includes meat. And, frankly, if you're trying to compare a vegan lifestyle to the average omnivorous lifestyle, there's a massive difference - it is going to be healthier***. So, unless there is a health reason for a carnivorous/omnivorous/vegan/vegetarian diet, it is a personal choice (whether monetary, moral, etc). Pushing your view on someone else in this situation is no better than in a religious debate - it'll only lead to a giant flame-war, as this thread has already proven. ***+ Show Spoiler + By healthier, I mean along the lines of less of the traditional health problems facing people who, on average, eat like shit (myself included). The type of diet lends itself to removing these obvious issues which could be fixed if people ate a more balanced diet. It's an obvious choice what is better; similar to choosing either a greasy burger or a garden salad. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4170 Posts
On February 13 2011 08:50 Saechiis wrote: A quote from Ghandi in 1946 is not relevant to a discussion on veganism in 2011. He was not even a nutrional expert in his days. As for the numbers, that's interesting. Could you post the source? Can't really comment on it's validity since I don't know the context of the survey. I've never claimed veganism was a healthier choice though, it's common knowledge that the best diets consist of varied food. I've said that one can live without eating meat, even normal if you're balancing your diet correctly. It was never under discussion that being vegan is a sacrifice. Also, how popular do you think veganism was more than a hundred years ago? I'm betting it wasn't 1% Probably not even 0,1% If you just don't post offensive oneliners to bait people, no-one's going to call you a troll. When one of the largest proponents of being a vegan, leading 22 other highly dedicated people in the quest of finding out if it is a reasonable lifestyle, must all change their diets because of health problems, it shows that there is something seriously wrong with the mentality..... Posted the source in a previous post. Ok, so, we're in agreement - a balanced diet is superior. Failing that, suppliments and fortified foods can help fix any problems in a non balanced diet (for whatever reasons). Apparently, if you have significant stores of vitamin B12 and D, you can live something like 10-12 years with a deficient diet before problems will start to arise, and those problems are very difficult to reverse..... Why take the chance? Do you realize how old veganism actually is? The origin of the term is like 60 something years old, but the same types of diets have been practiced for thousands of years..... We should be seeing super-people, if it was really a healthier choice..... So, because that hasn't, it's a fair assumption to say that it is, at best, no healthier than eating a balanced diet..... In which case, it's purely a personal choice..... And, posting an offensive one-liner is somehow worse than a larger post that's offensive? But, while we have + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://doesprayerwork.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/starving-child-sudan.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.boncherry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/starving2.jpg) As much as it sucks, there are far more important things for our own species to worry about - the cows probably have a longer life expectancy than those kids..... And the solution to that problem is not in giving them money, or giving them the grain used to feed the cattle..... I purchase free-range eggs when I can (or I get them from a friend who actually raises chickens), and when my family buys meat, we buy it in bulk from a butcher that buys animals from free-range farms and kills them in a humane method. But, with the current system, it's almost impossible to do that all the time (and, essentially impossible for me to do it while in uni without cutting meat out of my diet completely, which I will not do). So, essentially, I want to see the conditions of animals improve, while at the same time, I also love them while they're on my plate. I love them in a way you don't - therefore I love them more than you do. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
| ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 13 2011 08:50 Saechiis wrote: The allegations are getting worse and worse. Now my arguments are even bad because I bold them so they can be read properly or because I respond to posts piece by piece. If you're going to copy paste the meaning of analogy from the internet it's common practice to post a source. It would also be nice if you explained to me how it relates to anything. I don't wish to take your place in this argument too. Ok. Impervious wrote this. + Show Spoiler + Do you think that racism is bad? Do you think that sexism is bad? If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue. Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it. To which this was your replay. + Show Spoiler + I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder. In the first post the OP compared racism and sexism to specie-cism. If you can find a way to connect them by making an analogy it would be really beneficial to your arguments, but it seems to me (and to Impervious) that it's hard to make that connection. Now, few posts before I used an analogy to make a point. + Show Spoiler + Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine). Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How? And this was your response. + Show Spoiler + You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic [...] Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce. Neither of us got a response that would suggest you understood what we meant, and then I though "Hey, maybe Saechis doesn't know what an analogy is" so I decided to help you out by quoting a dictionary+ Show Spoiler + http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy Honestly, I don't think you even read what Impervious wrote. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4170 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:55 Lexpar wrote: Did you actually just supplement your argument with pictures of starving African children? Wow. And you were being so reasonable. From the OP Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest. Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights. Am I disregarding the rights of other species? Nope. Am i putting it as high as I put human rights? Fuck no. Am I going to put the life of an animal above the welfare of a person? Also no (probably the point where the OP and I disagree in principle, but that's where morals come in, so I don't want to go further into that). As a simple example - I'm driving home from work and a cat runs infront of my vehicle. I could avoid it by swerving into the opposite lane, endangering myself and potentially others. If I had to make the choice between the death of an animal and the death of a person, I'll kill the animal without a second thought. I'm not going to swerve into oncoming traffic when a cat runs across the road, for instance..... I'm not saying he's against human rights either. I highly doubt that he'd swerve into oncoming traffic for said cat either..... Same goes for everyone with that point of view. Subconciously, at minimum, you've put your own species first on many occasions in your life, even if you are vegan. Ultimately, this entire argument is about that; it's the welfare of the animals vs the welfare of people. Just on a much larger scale than the example of the cat. But, of course, it's highly unreasonable to actually look at it like this..... | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:50 Logros wrote: This blog posted a few pages back is actually a great read. It seems going vegan affects your mental clarity! That might explain all the misunderstanding and arguments in this thread .Good article, not sure how I missed it. I feel bad for that girl! Guess it wasn't for her. Takes a lot of guts to turn your blog around like that though. E-penis and things. Too bad she's completely changed her mind. She obviously has her opinion swayed and radicalized very easily though, going directly from eating meat to vegan (How many people actually do that? I ate fish for a year, then cut out fish, now am reducing dairy and eggs... not sure if I'll ever fully eliminate them though), and her fervent support of feminism. How does feminism have a fucking thing to do with veganism? It doesn't. "My friends are telling me to stick with the vegan diet even though I'm sick, obviously they want to keep me down so MEN can run the world.*" Right lady. Sure. * Actual quote. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 13 2011 10:12 Saechiis wrote: @Hulkmania: I couldn't really understand your post through the bolding and colours, but I managed to pick out a piece where you weren't really satisifed with my English. As such I propose we argue about veganism in Dutch, so I don't have to bother you with my weird words. Huh... WHAT?! You're telling me that even though I posted and commented an entire post of yours, you're just going to ignore it because it would be too difficult to respond to it? Instead you're just going to pick out one part of my post and make a "witty" response to it. Is that any way to behave? Hey, man. If you don't want to dive in, then don't start a debate in the first place. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold. It's an insult to the effort I'm putting in. See what I did there? | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:50 Logros wrote: This blog posted a few pages back is actually a great read. It seems going vegan affects your mental clarity! That might explain all the misunderstanding and arguments in this thread .That was interesting, thank you. It is interesting to read the story of a person who was forced with a choice between her own life, and the lives of animals, after being a vegan for so long, chose her own life. I feel like this is a normal thing. That she rationalizes in the end that she is just another part of the ecosystem is also something I thought I might bring up, but would have no real impact in this thread. There are some who claim they would rather die than commit injustice. I don't know if that is true, but this seems like the account of someone who really wanted to believe that, and in the end chose her own life. One thing I wanted to bring up, but didn't want to have to defend in the subject of debate, was that I feel worse the longer an animal's lifespan is. For example, I don't think twice about killing a fly who is just as likely to be swatted by my hand as it is to fly over my pot of boiling water, get dizzy, and drown. Hell, liquid doesn't even have to be boiling for those idiots to drown in it. How bad I feel also scales with how useful an animal is. I can ride a horse. A dog can help me hunt. A bunny is really cute. I feel worse about cutting those lives short than I do about cutting the life of a chicken short. I am truly, and wholly, concerned with an animal's value in relation to myself. I'd feel bad about killing a lizard which I had no intentions of eating as well, but I wouldn't feel bad at all about a deer. In the end, I realise that I am just a creature who sees other species in terms of their value to me. If a giant space worm needed to eat humans to survive, even if it was sentient and understood we didn't want to die, I don't think I'd particularly hate the space worm. I think I can accept mortality in my world. That's how I eat meat without feeling guilty. If I ask why is it, when I think in terms of value only relative to myself, that I think sexism and racism is wrong, I have to decide that it is different. It's different because those are humans, and human ethics are different. While a slave is useful, and perhaps having domination over the other sex might be useful, they are more useful as equals. I have to admit that I am equally vulnerable to being seen as the enslavable race/sex. It is not a fact of nature, but a political decision that affects these values. In nature, animals don't really have a concept of racism or sexism. Maybe one sex has certain roles that the other does not, but it is not the same as sexism in human culture. Yet they do eat other animals. That is natural. I will not call a tiger specie-ist because it eats other animals. I don't see why humans should be criticised for eating other animals, especially when there are many people who eventually suffer health problems from not doing so. Will you allow yourself to die before an animal just because of some bizarre ethical conviction? I wouldn't. Maybe this is the response Mr. Annotation-Arguer wanted. These are basically my thoughts on the topic. They don't change anything. They won't change your opinion. In the end they're as meaningless as they are fruitless. But that blog made me want to write them out Killing animals is wrong? That's truly arbitrary. Wanting to live? I'd say that's a biological program we can't deny. Some animals' lives are more valuable than others? It sounds sick, but it's absolutely what I believe.edit: To elaborate on why discrimination against humans is different vs discrimination against animals... I live with humans. Society functions because humans band together and can trust each other. We would have no technology if we were constantly trying to use and enslave each other. Animals on the other hand... pose no threat. We are 100% above them on the food chain. If a sentient, alien race were able to join human society, they also would not be on the rank of animals. Morality, I suppose, is more carefully planned than people believe. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights. Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false. Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way. Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action. My question: Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not? I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree. So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living? Why all the 'let's say' presumptions though? Because that was the whole purpose of sharing the experiences of a dairy cow. + Show Spoiler + Undoubtedly there are differences, since humans and animals are not the same in all respects. Granted, these animals do not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless, we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain? These desires are shared by nonhuman animals and human beings. As for comprehension: like humans, many nonhuman animals understand the world in which they live and move. Otherwise, they could not survive. So beneath the many differences, there is sameness. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6188 Posts
On topic I've seen vegans and it doesn't seem very healthy to me I think there is a reason we eat both meat and veggies for the same reason lions eat meat it's to survive and humans survive better with meat. Plus from what I have seen people who eat meat are a lot fitter and seem more positive in life so that's why I am a meat eater | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 13 2011 20:34 RvB wrote: I just wanted to say that it's better not to argue with saiichis( or w/e his name is) from what I have seen from him is that all he does is personally insult people and when he loses an argument he just disappears. On topic I've seen vegans and it doesn't seem very healthy to me I think there is a reason we eat both meat and veggies for the same reason lions eat meat it's to survive and humans survive better with meat. Plus from what I have seen people who eat meat are a lot fitter and seem more positive in life so that's why I am a meat eater If you want to criticize me, that's fine, but at least do so in a fair manner. If you're of the opinion that I'm a bad poster, please point out what is wrong with my reasoning. If you can't spell my screenname correctly after reading my 20 posts in this thread, I seriously begin to doubt how well you've read them. Generalizing my replies in this thread across the 1465 other posts I've made on TeamLiquid also doesn't help your case. I've tried to be as objective and non-offensive as I could in this thread, so I'm surprised at the claim that all I do is insult people. And saying that I run away when I lose an argument is just completely unfounded. I'm still here replying aren't I? I think I've even made the most responses in this thread, so if you're still thinking that I'm running away from the argument I'd like to hear a good reason why that is so. You argument against Veganism is more your opinion on Veganism; there isn't really any way for anyone to respond to it since your opinion is your opinion. On February 13 2011 12:17 agarangu wrote: Ok. Impervious wrote this. + Show Spoiler + Do you think that racism is bad? Do you think that sexism is bad? If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue. Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it. To which this was your replay. + Show Spoiler + I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder. In the first post the OP compared racism and sexism to specie-cism. If you can find a way to connect them by making an analogy it would be really beneficial to your arguments, but it seems to me (and to Impervious) that it's hard to make that connection. Now, few posts before I used an analogy to make a point. + Show Spoiler + Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine). Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How? And this was your response. + Show Spoiler + You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic [...] Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce. Neither of us got a response that would suggest you understood what we meant, and then I though "Hey, maybe Saechis doesn't know what an analogy is" so I decided to help you out by quoting a dictionary+ Show Spoiler + http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy Honestly, I don't think you even read what Impervious wrote. I used an analogy earlier in the thread which is perfect in response to your post; why didn't you quote that? I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common. Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, are fallacious. When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
| ||
