EPTI know some of the percentages by memory, but it's just that I wonder what this means in practice..
[Veganism] Fucking humanity - Page 26
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Kirameki
96 Posts
I know some of the percentages by memory, but it's just that I wonder what this means in practice.. | ||
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
On February 09 2011 20:54 Kirameki wrote: It's always meat eaters that call out the vegetarians. Not the other way around. Ask any vegetarian. Fish are animals. They are less similar to mammals. It depends on your reasons for being a vegetarian. Eating beef or pork won't destroy the ecosystem. Eating fish often does. Suffering is different. Fish also live in the wild. So different moral principles are applied. What is there to call out on vegetarians? I think people are just striking up a conversation and you are reading too much into it. | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
On February 09 2011 18:48 imapotato wrote: Ok right of the bat i'm gonna say i'm a meat eater. All i really have to say is that the video shown here is crap, it shows the worst factory farms on the planet and ignores any points on free range / fairly treated animals. To make matters worse the person who started this whole thread comes from NZ were we have incredibly high standards on animal cruelty, so the video doesn't really relate to him at all. I guess the thing i have to say is that there's nothing wrong with eating meat, the only thing i would like to see happen is to see stricter rules on how animals are treated in these farms, feeding people sick animals is not alright! Stop forcing your goddamn life style on other people! This is the type of quote that people who are Vegans/ Vegetarians avoid answering. I mean seriously... whats the answer to this? What about sweatshops and FoxConn? Vegans hold on happily to their iPhones and MacbookPros when the product comes from just as much injustice to Humane conditions as some of these slaughterhouses. Foxconn is on only one example of this. In my Asian American Studies classes there was terrible amounts of human working conditions to produce common clothes. Yet... People still wear them. And also... to the previous post. you HAVE to fish otherwise you risk overpopulation or having certain fish wipe out another fish. The fishing industry is very calculated. They avoid overfishing. I'm not sure I've read anywhere that fishing destroys the environment.... And no... that dolphin whaling thing in japan does not count as fishing industry. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On February 09 2011 20:49 Kirameki wrote: Reading these posts, if people here wouldn't be: 1)ignorant 2)stupid 3)more loyal to their own beliefs and moral standards Half of you would be at least vegetarians. These posts are really stupid and all meat eaters should be ashamed of them. If you eat meat at least be able to defend your views in a reasonable way when you feel so insecure you have to respond. Only then you can be a 'proud' meat eater. Really, you people all seem to be 'self hating' meat eaters. Yeah you're probably right. I always get swedish meat, free-range/organic eggs etc but I would never give up meat altogether. The reason I wouldn't give up meat is because I simply place my own well being far above that of any animal. I certainly won't try to defend my meat consumption. | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
I am not trying to prove anything!? The mere definition of a moral system entails codes of conduct which are set in place in order to promote "good" (whatever that means in a particular context). The vast majority of moral systems in modern meta-ethics is based on a non self-centered notion of "good", so it is a simple empirical fact that moral systems in place aim to provide reasons for actions which do not guarantee you a "return", but instead increase "goodness". The return is almost never something solid like pick up that trash and receive 5 dollars. I would say that increasing general goodness and well-being of everyone is a pretty decent return. Of course the problem here is that someone can just abuse this system and receive the return without doing much good. I don't understand how abiding a moral code like this is not selfish. Most people however act good, as in they don't go around killing, raping and stealing. When a lot of people agree to this, everyone receives a return. It's not like you really have a choice either. You commit crimes, you get punished. I would argue that people would go pretty feral, if there was no chance of them getting caught or/and punished. I am a moral realist, in that I think truth statements can be made with respect to moral contentions. I hold this view because I am sure that if there are two possible worlds, and in world 1 every sentient being is better or equally well off than in world 2", then the statement "world 1 is better (i.e. more "good") than world 2" is true. Otherwise I would not even know what "better", "good" or "bad" could even mean. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. In a moral code things that abide it are considered good and things that don't are considered evil. It doesn't really matter what kind of a moral code it is. I guess you could say that I'm a relativist of some sort, but the reason I think my morals are better than the jungle cannibals is, that it minimizes human suffering and allows the human race to improve itself. If the scientific method finds a better way to achieve these goals, I would advocate that moral code. Since I do not see any meaningful way to seperate humans from other animals, except on the basis of their cognitive abilities which does not seem to provide any clear cut-off, I cannot discard the states of other animals (at least not completely). What other reason do you need that we are humans and they are not. They have lesser cognitive abilities, if that doesn't matter to you, you must be feeling sorry for all those plants and insects too. Every species is out there to survive and reproduce on the expense of other species. Some species develop symbiotic relationships, which complicates things a bit, but even that only happened because it was the most efficient way for them to continue their legacy. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3975 Posts
Eating meat: Not Wrong. Canine teeth. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 09 2011 20:52 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I agree with you that a moral system entails a code of conduct. And I agree with you that the vast majority of moral systems are "other" oriented. But there are some important exceptions that are not prima facie incoherent: Aristotle's conception of Eudaimonia is tickling the edges of an ethical//rational egoism. M. Stirner is a straight up egoist of some kind. Nietzsche certainly thinks ethics, if it is to be something wholesome at all, should be a code of conduct that increases the strength of the individual practicing it. And don't forget Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics (which should get more attention that it does and is getting more attention that it used to). You are absolutely right that there are prominent exceptions, even though sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint the difference between self-centered and not self-centered takes on morality. Nietzsche, for instances, also seemed to despise actions which make other individuals "weak" and objectivism certainly condones actions with no immediate or direct return - as long as it can be argued that they contribute to the overall stability of society. I find Ayn Rand's take on animal rights not convincing though, since he does not offer a biological argument on how to distinguish rational from non-rational agents. I think he is further subject to an incorrect syllogism in that he seems to say that since a sentient being is not a moral agent and thus cannot be subject to a moral statement, it cannot be object in a moral statement either. Just because I think that a 6 months old child cannot be held morally responsible for anything, it doesn't mean that whatever I do to this child is morally irrelevant. I see a similar connection to animals. | ||
|
BrogMeister
Sweden22 Posts
On February 09 2011 21:06 adeezy wrote: This is the type of quote that people who are Vegans/ Vegetarians avoid answering. I mean seriously... whats the answer to this? What about sweatshops and FoxConn? Vegans hold on happily to their iPhones and MacbookPros when the product comes from just as much injustice to Humane conditions as some of these slaughterhouses. Foxconn is on only one example of this. In my Asian American Studies classes there was terrible amounts of human working conditions to produce common clothes. Yet... People still wear them. And also... to the previous post. you HAVE to fish otherwise you risk overpopulation or having certain fish wipe out another fish. The fishing industry is very calculated. They avoid overfishing. I'm not sure I've read anywhere that fishing destroys the environment.... And no... that dolphin whaling thing in japan does not count as fishing industry. The answer to that quote is quite simple: An industry designed to convert living, feeling beings into profit is not compatible with any animal wellfare. For example: a cow which is allowed to bond naturally to her calves would only give milk in their presence, which would be a huge extra cost for the diary industry. Therefore the calve is separated from the cow early to prohibit the bonding, and this is true whether it's so called "ecological" production or not. This one of many obvious frustrations of the cows' basic needs in the industry. In general I think you would find vegans more engaged in global economical fairness than your average joe. The notion that if we left nature alone it would somehow mismanage itself is absurd. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 09 2011 21:14 Sotamursu wrote: The return is almost never something solid like pick up that trash and receive 5 dollars. I would say that increasing general goodness and well-being of everyone is a pretty decent return. Of course the problem here is that someone can just abuse this system and receive the return without doing much good. I don't understand how abiding a moral code like this is not selfish. Most people however act good, as in they don't go around killing, raping and stealing. When a lot of people agree to this, everyone receives a return. It's not like you really have a choice either. You commit crimes, you get punished. I would argue that people would go pretty feral, if there was no chance of them getting caught or/and punished. Well, we might get into a pointless semantic argument here, so I will just say: If you think that increasing "goodness" is always egoistic/selfish, then yes, you always get a return. I don't understand what you could possibly mean by egoistic if you use it like this, since it does not seem to allow any distinction from altruistic anymore, but this might just be my problem and I am happy to accept your definition. What other reason do you need that we are humans and they are not. They have lesser cognitive abilities, if that doesn't matter to you, you must be feeling sorry for all those plants and insects too. Every species is out there to survive and reproduce on the expense of other species. Some species develop symbiotic relationships, which complicates things a bit, but even that only happened because it was the most efficient way for them to continue their legacy. My empathy with animals/living beings certainly does increase with their level of cognitive abilities. That's exactly why I care less for a potatoe (not at all since no cognition), than for a fly, than for a pig, than for a dolphin, than for a human. If you take extreme speciism seriously, then a potatoe should be as relevant to me, as a dog. I doubt anybody really feels that way. Furthermore "species" is a rather vague biological entity (in the sense that at transition points it becomes arbitrary) since we are all related. If we would find out that mice are actually highly intelligent (and have for generations tried to contact us with sounds in morse codes since they lack the vocal cords), I think that this should fundamentally change the way we treat mice. | ||
|
TrinitySC
101 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:41 Humppis wrote: A sociopath could ask why anyone else than him/her self has rights. Its showing empathy to our fellow earth dwellers, and not everybody can understand this. We humans define rights for our selves, whitch tends to end up in very selfish rules. See, this is the problem. Rather than attempting to offer up a decent rationale as to why animals should have rights, you react emotionally. You're basically telling me this is so because you're right and I'm wrong. Just because this is how you feel things should be, you label me as a sociopath at the slightest implication of disagreement from your views rather than taking the time to explain to me with reason why animals should have rights. "You are wrong because your views are not the same as mine." In that sense, how are you any different from religious extremists? I could even go so far as to reduce to ad hitlerum, and it would apply. There actually are many reasons why animals, to an extent, should have rights. An obvious one is that there is virtue in avoiding and discouraging cruelty (i.e. deliberate infliction of pain or suffering), whether it is to a human or animal. Even so, many factory farms around the world utilize methods that cause unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals they raise, and some people inflict pain to animals for no other reason than simple pleasure. Such forms of cruelty can expand as a menace to society as a whole, yet they can be avoided with little or no cost, and therefore it is good that we do so. But alas, no; we must give animals rights because you "believe" and "feel" that it's wrong. Bah. This is why I personally consider many of the opinions and arguments of PETA and other animal rights activists to be utter shit. Because even though some of them are valid efforts towards worthy causes, most of them amount to little more than adolescent outcries of self-righteous drama queens pickled in confirmation bias. When you consistently resort to emotional, perjorative responses based upon faulty judgements (availibility, overconfidence, confirmation... you name it, you probably have it), all you manage to do is encourage reciprocation from those who disagree with you. But then again, maybe it's no coincidence this trait is so common among the more active activists... P.S. as for veganism.. I honestly don't care what you eat or don't eat, and to an extent I can empathize with your choices; the treatment of animals at certain facilities can be too much for me, too, sometimes. A lot of it is definitely unnecessary and, by all means, it's worth it to raise awareness in an effort to bring needless cruelty to an end. But consider this that somebody once told me: "Religion is like a penis; it's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of one, but it's not fine to go around shoving it in other peoples' faces." The same pretty much applies to beliefs or practices of any kind, not just religion. Even so, some people have been being rather assertive with their beliefs regarding dietary habits of others, and even proceeded to call others out for reciprocating a response. This just ties right back to the ad hitlerum statement I made a few paragraphs above and it's downright annoying there's a thread with such an ulterior motive. Sometimes I'm genuinely embarrassed that I belong in this genus. </wall of text> | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:17 MiraMax wrote: Maybe I missed it, but could you share with me your main argument for "eating meat happily". I eat meat happily, but only because I decided that I don't care (too much) about animal well-being, even though I think I should, much like I decided that I will not care (too much) about the poverty in the world, even though I know I should. I have taken these decisions mainly out of convenience, since I cannot fight all evil in the world at once. I nonetheless grant to people who actively fight for animal rights and against poverty that they have "the moral high ground" (in the respective field). What's your take on it? By that happy phrase I meant that I have no moral problems with eating meat per se. Empathy is emotion(even towards animals) that most normal people have, you just have to use reason to look at the practical side of things. So of course I feel empathy towards tortured animal, but that just means I don't want it to suffer, but killing them for food is natural. And by saying that you think you should care shows that you actually at least slightly care. I think if you saw screaming and crying tortured animal you would feel sorry for it, yes it is possible to grow accustomed to human/animal suffering, but that is not the case for most citizens of first world. Of course you are not feeling bad for every suffering animal on the planet, because that is not humanly possible as it is not possible to be actively 24-7 sorry for the people in the third world or in disaster areas. But thanks to that empathy you acknowledge that something is wrong and using your brain support practical measures to rectify it. PETA people go too far with the emotional part, on the other hand people who do not really care about animal suffering (and as I said by caring I mean just that, there is no action required, although than you run risk of being kind of hypocrite) are just kind of inhuman. Also note that there is big moral distinction between humans and animals. So it is easily possible to have "absolute" moral system where there is no problem with eating meat and even using animals for research (specific one). | ||
|
Terrakin
United States1440 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:34 RoseTempest wrote: So having a nervous system is it then? Ever step on an ant? Ever swat a fly? fucking hypocrite Black and white much ? You do not recognize the difference between ant ant dog ? They have differently complicated nervous systems. | ||
|
nathangonmad
United Kingdom316 Posts
| ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 09 2011 21:14 Sotamursu wrote: I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. In a moral code things that abide it are considered good and things that don't are considered evil. It doesn't really matter what kind of a moral code it is. I guess you could say that I'm a relativist of some sort, but the reason I think my morals are better than the jungle cannibals is, that it minimizes human suffering and allows the human race to improve itself. If the scientific method finds a better way to achieve these goals, I would advocate that moral code. We seem to not be too much apart then. If you make a distinction between two moral systems and say one is (or can in principle be) "better" than another, then the question of whether you should adapt one system or the other is a morally relevant action. If you think that this question can (in principle) be answered by more than just personal taste or cultural presupposition, then you are a moral realist in my book. | ||
|
incifan
Germany138 Posts
And because a picture sais more than a wall of text: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/N1i2m.jpg) | ||
|
BrogMeister
Sweden22 Posts
On February 09 2011 21:35 TrinitySC wrote: See, this is the problem. Rather than attempting to offer up a decent rationale as to why animals should have rights, you react emotionally. You're basically telling me this is so because you're right and I'm wrong. Just because this is how you feel things should be, you label me as a sociopath at the slightest implication of disagreement from your views rather than taking the time to explain to me with reason why animals should have rights. "You are wrong because your views are not the same as mine." In that sense, how are you any different from religious extremists? I could even go so far as to reduce to ad hitlerum, and it would apply. There actually are many reasons why animals, to an extent, should have rights. An obvious one is that there is virtue in avoiding and discouraging cruelty (i.e. deliberate infliction of pain or suffering), whether it is to a human or animal. Even so, many factory farms around the world utilize methods that cause unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals they raise, and some people inflict pain to animals for no other reason than simple pleasure. Such forms of cruelty can expand as a menace to society as a whole, yet they can be avoided with little or no cost, and therefore it is good that we do so. But alas, no; we must give animals rights because you "believe" and "feel" that it's wrong. Bah. This is why I personally consider many of the opinions and arguments of PETA and other animal rights activists to be utter shit. Because even though some of them are valid efforts towards worthy causes, most of them amount to little more than delusional outcries of self-righteous drama queens pickled in confirmation bias. When you consistently resort to emotional, perjorative responses based upon faulty judgements (availibility, overconfidence, confirmation... you name it, you probably have it), all you manage to do is encourage reciprocation from those who disagree with you. But then again, maybe it's no coincidence this trait is so common among the more active activists... P.S. as for veganism.. I honestly don't care what you eat or don't eat, and to an extent I can empathize with your choices; the treatment of animals at certain facilities can be too much for me, too, sometimes. A lot of it is definitely unnecessary and, by all means, it's worth it to raise awareness in an effort to bring needless cruelty to an end. But consider this that somebody once told me: "Religion is like a penis; it's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of one, but it's not fine to go around shoving it in other peoples' faces." The same pretty much applies to beliefs or practices of any kind, not just religion. Even so, some people have been being rather assertive with their beliefs regarding dietary habits of others, and even proceeded to call others out for reciprocating a response. This just ties right back to the ad hitlerum statement I made a few paragraphs above and it's downright annoying there's a thread with such an ulterior motive. Sometimes I'm genuinely embarrassed that I belong in this genus. </wall of text> The whole farming industry is unnecessary and inherently cruel. Even if we disregard the animals in the industry, it's still a source of unhealty food, a great waste of resources and a major cause of global warming. The reason vegans want to spread their lifestyle is not (mainly) because they are self-righteous, but because they care about the animals. "Superior intelligence is like a penis; it's fine to have one and fine to be proud of it, but it's not fine to use it to exploit less intelligent animals." | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 09 2011 20:35 Grantalf wrote: I've been vegan for 9 years. And from my experience and research, the health and environmental benefits would be enough to suggest it to anyone even if they don't agree with the animal rights argument. It may be worth it to do research a few layers deeper than both PETA and Penn and Teller. Regardless, it's all incredibly interesting no matter how you feel. And I also think that all of the Protoss race would be vegan if they had mouths. There is absolutely no data to support any benefits of being vegan as opposed to being vegetarian. Actually opposite is true. | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
 . Meat tastes too good to give up anyway lol | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 09 2011 21:36 mcc wrote: At what level of intellectual sophistication do you draw the line between it being ok to kill an organism for food and it being not ok? Which criteria does an organism have to fulfill for you to consider other factors additionally to just suffering and efficiency?By that happy phrase I meant that I have no moral problems with eating meat per se. Empathy is emotion(even towards animals) that most normal people have, you just have to use reason to look at the practical side of things. So of course I feel empathy towards tortured animal, but that just means I don't want it to suffer, but killing them for food is natural. And by saying that you think you should care shows that you actually at least slightly care. I think if you saw screaming and crying tortured animal you would feel sorry for it, yes it is possible to grow accustomed to human/animal suffering, but that is not the case for most citizens of first world. Of course you are not feeling bad for every suffering animal on the planet, because that is not humanly possible as it is not possible to be actively 24-7 sorry for the people in the third world or in disaster areas. But thanks to that empathy you acknowledge that something is wrong and using your brain support practical measures to rectify it. PETA people go too far with the emotional part, on the other hand people who do not really care about animal suffering (and as I said by caring I mean just that, there is no action required, although than you run risk of being kind of hypocrite) are just kind of inhuman. Also note that there is big moral distinction between humans and animals. So it is easily possible to have "absolute" moral system where there is no problem with eating meat and even using animals for research (specific one). | ||
| ||
