vegans!

Place open for new posts ā€” threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: vegans!

Post by forgrin »

musketjr wrote:
WickedCossack wrote:This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!


it's funny because you probably didn't read it but this is the premise I based the story on page 1 on


Factory farming of animals is shitty, which is the point of your story. If conditions were equal to a small-scale organic, free range farm, it wouldn't be nearly as horrific, and if it was at a level of human consciousness (eg essentially a normal human life with school, learning, society, etc, only plus harvesting), which would be equivalent to the intelligence of the animal concerned, then nothing is really shocking, just dystopian. Your argument in the story is really against factory farming, not overall meat consumption.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by musketjr »

forgrin wrote:
musketjr wrote:
WickedCossack wrote:This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!


it's funny because you probably didn't read it but this is the premise I based the story on page 1 on


Factory farming of animals is shitty, which is the point of your story. If conditions were equal to a small-scale organic, free range farm, it wouldn't be nearly as horrific, and if it was at a level of human consciousness (eg essentially a normal human life with school, learning, society, etc, only plus harvesting), which would be equivalent to the intelligence of the animal concerned, then nothing is really shocking, just dystopian. Your argument in the story is really against factory farming, not overall meat consumption.


my point in the story was to answer incog's trite dismissal of veganism by describing him as a commodified animal. if he is so sure of his stance, then he should consider another party treating him as a commodity and how it looks from a detached perspective.

it's not implied from the story alone whether i'm against all, or only intensive, farming. obviously all, as it's all unnecessary, and therefore needlessly cruel (unless you are living in the jungle with no other modern infrastructure or technology, barring of course your internet connection and computer, or in the Antarctic, you cannot dispute it is unnecessary)
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: vegans!

Post by deleted_user0 »

WickedCossack wrote:This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!


do you think they'd care about our moral theories? they be like, awww these people are all so nice to cats n cows, lets not eat them? The alian argument is just as stupid as the plant have feelings argument, in fact its more stupid...
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: vegans!

Post by deleted_user0 »

musketjr wrote:
Dolan wrote:
Show hidden quotes

I've read their statements very carefully and I know what each means. I've studied neuroscience for a number of years, so I'm familiar with the topics and the terminology used in the field. Same for psychology.

First of all, it's a very general declaration. It doesn't address at all the points I made about the uniqueness of Theory of Mind abilities in humans. And how this ability is linked to our unique kind of self-consciousness and the capacity to feel pain (nociception). They are just saying very general things, such as most living beings share similar brain systems. True, you can find similar brain systems all the way down to the fruit fly. Because evolutionarily, they have been inherited. But that doesn't mean humans and fruitflies are capable of similar cognition or affective states. Still fruit flies and other animals like rats are used to study mood disorders or behavioural disorders, by using gene/brain circuit manipulation to disable/enable certain brain functions and see which are likely to induce disorders. Still neither fruit flies nor rats have the mental abilities or social structure which makes them experience the kind of stress which leads to these disorders in humans. Researchers are using them to study brain systems which are evolutionarily similar, because it's the cheapest way of finding a possible candidate for study in great apes or even humans.
They're just looking for the most rudimentary traces of biological systems that would develop, in higher order animals, functions capable of supporting the kind of diseases and illnesses we can see in humans. It's all about homology, not about real similarity in function.

One of their arguments is actually quite doubtful. They say that the fact that evidence shows there can be affective states without a cortex, and since the subcortical structures are generally shared among a great number of species (especially mammals), then this means, there is a common support for similar experiences of (self)awareness. Sure, those affective states can exist, but in a very basic form, for example if you stimulate certain areas in the hypothalamus of both humans and rats, you can get the same feeling of being thirsty or behaviour of becoming aggressive. But higher cognition is responsible for a number of emotions that are unique to humans, such as envy, jealousy, hope, disgust, shame.

You have to take into account that most researchers are not great philosophers and very often they don't come up with the best interpretations of their findings. If you read their studies, you can tell how most empirical researchers are philosopher wannabes, by how much they try to assign some higher significance to their findings, occasionally dabbling in philosophical issues that they don't know very well. You can also be sure that this declaration is not the result of consensus of the whole community of researchers, it's just a limited number of researchers.

Also, sure, there is one name which is one of the greatest researchers in neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp, but he is known for having a bias towards ascribing too much importance to the limbic system, the brain system which supports primal affective states and which is found under the cortex. So, even if he is a great researcher, he does have his own biases in the field.

So, the relevance of this declaration is debatable. You can find plenty of other researchers who will disagree with their statements or would want to add lots of qualifications to each of them.


this again is a quality and thoughtful reply but its effect is to muddy the discussion. instead of asking whether doing X to animals for Y reason is reasonable, this kind of thing asks us whether what they experience is even as it seems. the declaration is general - the point is that it represents a scientific consensus that animals are sentient, putting to rest the old Cartesian view of animals as animated machines or the Christian view of animals as morally irrelevant human utilities.


Sentience is just one characteristic amongst many that can be used to include or exclude things or beings from/in the group you deem worthy of your moral consideration. Instead of the ability to feel, you could take the ability to convert nutrients into bodily energy. you could take growth, you could take the ability to die, please tell me why these shouldnt be considered above feeling pain?
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: vegans!

Post by forgrin »

musketjr wrote:
forgrin wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Factory farming of animals is shitty, which is the point of your story. If conditions were equal to a small-scale organic, free range farm, it wouldn't be nearly as horrific, and if it was at a level of human consciousness (eg essentially a normal human life with school, learning, society, etc, only plus harvesting), which would be equivalent to the intelligence of the animal concerned, then nothing is really shocking, just dystopian. Your argument in the story is really against factory farming, not overall meat consumption.


my point in the story was to answer incog's trite dismissal of veganism by describing him as a commodified animal. if he is so sure of his stance, then he should consider another party treating him as a commodity and how it looks from a detached perspective.

it's not implied from the story alone whether i'm against all, or only intensive, farming. obviously all, as it's all unnecessary, and therefore needlessly cruel (unless you are living in the jungle with no other modern infrastructure or technology, barring of course your internet connection and computer, or in the Antarctic, you cannot dispute it is unnecessary)


Such first-world bias lol. There are many, many regions in the world where people still hunt and bring up livestock to survive due to the poor quality of the land. There are large amounts of the planet that simply aren't suitable for farming, especially of the protein-heavy legumes etc necessary to supplant meat, and are only suitable as grazing or foraging for livestock. Animals allow us to produce food where we otherwise couldn't. Animal production is only unnecessary if you're lucky enough to live in an agriculturally gifted area or can pay the extra to ship food from said areas.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by musketjr »

umeu wrote:
musketjr wrote:I respect you're not being flippant neuron, but that theory sounds irrelevant. I will cite this, for example

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf

the language is beyond me, but the final sentence is the takeaway for the layman:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.


you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?


suffering, or the ability to suffer is not a neccesary criterion to be given rights.


animals have negative rights, the right not to be... and for these their ability to suffer is of course the crux. you will find that law already ostensibly affords them these negative rights (see the case discussion i linked above, the 'aspirational wording of legislation'). what happens, though, is that these are a. not realised (not enforced in any meaningful way for animals whose exploitation serves a purpose society sanctions), and b. applied injuriously, eg. pet animals are protected by these negative rights, whereas food animals are not.

the argument is infact for the already existing sentiments, and the nascent but already existing political frameworks to reach their logical conclusion
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by musketjr »

forgrin wrote:
musketjr wrote:
Show hidden quotes


my point in the story was to answer incog's trite dismissal of veganism by describing him as a commodified animal. if he is so sure of his stance, then he should consider another party treating him as a commodity and how it looks from a detached perspective.

it's not implied from the story alone whether i'm against all, or only intensive, farming. obviously all, as it's all unnecessary, and therefore needlessly cruel (unless you are living in the jungle with no other modern infrastructure or technology, barring of course your internet connection and computer, or in the Antarctic, you cannot dispute it is unnecessary)


Such first-world bias lol. There are many, many regions in the world where people still hunt and bring up livestock to survive due to the poor quality of the land. There are large amounts of the planet that simply aren't suitable for farming, especially of the protein-heavy legumes etc necessary to supplant meat, and are only suitable as grazing or foraging for livestock. Animals allow us to produce food where we otherwise couldn't. Animal production is only unnecessary if you're lucky enough to live in an agriculturally gifted area or can pay the extra to ship food from said areas.


incorrect. meat is a first world bias. consumption increases as wealth increases, and in poor societies it is a luxury foodstuff. you also know that the industries, both large and small scale that we are discussing, are entirely unnecessary in the western world, so ditch the endless pointless distractions.

you study bioethics, you say, yet you would bring up land-use and grain requirements willingly?
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by Dolan »

.this again is a quality and thoughtful reply but its effect is to muddy the discussion. instead of asking whether doing X to animals for Y reason is reasonable, this kind of thing asks us whether what they experience is even as it seems. the declaration is general - the point is that is represents a scientific consensus that animals are sentient, putting to rest the old Cartesian view of animals as animated machines or the Christian view of animals as morally irrelevant human utilities.

I addressed on point exactly the issues you raised, trying to clarify what is the significance of that declaration. You actually raised two points: the Cambridge declaration and the point about whether I'm implying cows have a less intense phenomenological experience of pain.

Now you're moving the goalposts and asking me why didn't I address the ethical issues too. I think I was quite clear and straightforward in my 2nd post, when I wrote a short recap of the arguments used before in a similar topic on this forum. There can't be an argument which uses the common capacity to feel pain to support ethical treatment of nonhuman animals, for the reasons I gave above (humans 'unique theory of mind ability supporting empathy which is linked to the ability to feel pain in a tragic way, compared to nonhuman animals). This feeling of tragedy in seeing pain in other animals and empathising with it is purely human and is not shared by other species.

Still, I argued, even if nonhuman animals don't experience pain at the same intensity as humans, we should strive to using nonpainful ways to kill them for our consumption. I'm talking about those species which are specifically bred for our consumption. There are some proteins which our brains need to develop properly which can only be found in animal meat, the reasons for that are evolutionary.

And a consensus by a few researchers doesn't represent the consensus of the entire scientific community. It's just a statement shared by a particular group of researchers.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: vegans!

Post by momuuu »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:You guys are funny. I have been on a plant based diet for nearly 6 years. I sometimes say vegan because its easier for people to understand, but most vegans will say I am not because I do eat honey. and have some leather products from hunted animals and even skinned some roadkill. Thankfully though I see more of that vegan lingo becoming more encompassing to not be so exclusive as any who are on that path are doing a great thing. Its the best thing I ever did for myself, my health, and the planet. The amount of meat consumed, what has to be done to sustain that production is really quite sickening. Far from what having your own hens are. Their extremism is nothing more than the opposite side of the mirror reflecting the extreme position of the meat industry and dairy industry. That lobbies the gov't for subsidies so you can afford it (otherwise would cost 80-90$ per lb) and makes food pyramids teaching them as children what to put on their plate.

Can you twach me lofe im eating so kuch meed im dying plx mr hoeling youre so superio briase be yours.
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: vegans!

Post by forgrin »

incorrect. meat is a first world bias. consumption increases as wealth increases, and in poor societies it is a luxury foodstuff. you also know that the industries, both large and small scale that we are discussing, are entirely unnecessary in the western world, so ditch the endless pointless distractions.

you study bioethics, you say, yet you would bring up land-use and grain requirements willingly?

@musketjr

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore lol. I don't study bioethics, I study agricultural science, dramatically different fields (bioethics is a branch of philosophy). We take some courses where we explore animal and farming ethics but it's not really bioethics. Bioethics is like this thread, it gets too caught up in whether or not some animals can "feel," and how much, and forgets about other more important aspects.

In the western world they *might* be unnecessary, but if climate change continues to escalate areas like Cali will dramatically drop production as will many other farming belts. Ranching animals on grassland is much less taxing than the large-scale agriculture necessary to facilitate veganism in the current changing world. However, factory farming of animals should be on its way out too hopefully.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by musketjr »

'A', not 'the' consensus. there is no unqualified consensus for anything these days. if you think the notion of animals suffering is controversial, I don't know what to say to you. I don't see a connection whatsoever between (lack of) tragic awareness and the kind of intense suffering animals are put through in these industries.

it all seems, as you state yourself, to be a moot point because they do suffer and you advocate for some kind of benevolent exploitation, a contradiction in terms. in truth, you also believe in veganism, if you believe it is wrong to cause animals to suffer for frivolous reasons.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by deleted_user »

Whooooo caressss
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by musketjr »

forgrin wrote:
incorrect. meat is a first world bias. consumption increases as wealth increases, and in poor societies it is a luxury foodstuff. you also know that the industries, both large and small scale that we are discussing, are entirely unnecessary in the western world, so ditch the endless pointless distractions.

you study bioethics, you say, yet you would bring up land-use and grain requirements willingly?

@musketjr

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore lol. I don't study bioethics, I study agricultural science, dramatically different fields (bioethics is a branch of philosophy). We take some courses where we explore animal and farming ethics but it's not really bioethics. Bioethics is like this thread, it gets too caught up in whether or not some animals can "feel," and how much, and forgets about other more important aspects.

In the western world they *might* be unnecessary, but if climate change continues to escalate areas like Cali will dramatically drop production as will many other farming belts. Ranching animals on grassland is much less taxing than the large-scale agriculture necessary to facilitate veganism in the current changing world. However, factory farming of animals should be on its way out too hopefully.


if you don't like your bad points being shown up for what they are, stop making them

and remove the *might*, it's disingenuous
User avatar
United States of America Mvp618
Skirmisher
Posts: 133
Joined: May 20, 2016
ESO: Mvp618

Re: vegans!

Post by Mvp618 »

vegan/vegetarian/pussy/pescatarian all the same thing as far as i'm concerned
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: vegans!

Post by forgrin »

musketjr wrote:
forgrin wrote:
incorrect. meat is a first world bias. consumption increases as wealth increases, and in poor societies it is a luxury foodstuff. you also know that the industries, both large and small scale that we are discussing, are entirely unnecessary in the western world, so ditch the endless pointless distractions.

you study bioethics, you say, yet you would bring up land-use and grain requirements willingly?

@musketjr

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore lol. I don't study bioethics, I study agricultural science, dramatically different fields (bioethics is a branch of philosophy). We take some courses where we explore animal and farming ethics but it's not really bioethics. Bioethics is like this thread, it gets too caught up in whether or not some animals can "feel," and how much, and forgets about other more important aspects.

In the western world they *might* be unnecessary, but if climate change continues to escalate areas like Cali will dramatically drop production as will many other farming belts. Ranching animals on grassland is much less taxing than the large-scale agriculture necessary to facilitate veganism in the current changing world. However, factory farming of animals should be on its way out too hopefully.


if you don't like your bad points being shown up for what they are, stop making them

and remove the *might*, it's disingenuous


I'm not making "bad points," you're attacking statements and views I haven't made/don't hold. You're attacking me for being pro-factory farm and pro-current meat consumption, which I am not, then coming to the illogical conclusion that veganism is the only answer to those issues.
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: vegans!

Post by Jam »

These moral issues will become obsolete, for Industrial farming cannot compete, with the wonderful invention of lab-grown meat.
User avatar
United States of America HeatitUP_
Lancer
Posts: 642
Joined: Apr 7, 2016

Re: vegans!

Post by HeatitUP_ »

If I was a vegan I would probably starve to death! This is the best way to cook if you're a REAL AMERICAN! USA! USA!! USA!!! USA!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PastmpZnShQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]
All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me - consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected. - Donald Trump
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

I highly suggest people try a one week raw plant based diet to see how you feel. Its good to give the body this break from meat (but more importantly dairy) and help cleanse and detox. highly suggest fresh juicing as its terrific for energy. fasting is also great but I would suggest going through some juice fast first, and after wards... seek more information for those interested.
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by Laurence Drake »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:I highly suggest people try a one week raw plant based diet to see how you feel. Its good to give the body this break from meat (but more importantly dairy) and help cleanse and detox. highly suggest fresh juicing as its terrific for energy. fasting is also great but I would suggest going through some juice fast first, and after wards... seek more information for those interested.

sounds like a great plan for a shit week
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by Goodspeed »

Preserving species to keep ecosystems intact is one thing, but I honestly just cannot get myself to give two shits about whether the pig I'm eating suffered or not. With poverty still this huge, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves with all these first world problems. It's dinner, guys, nothing more.
I highly suggest people try a one week raw plant based diet to see how you feel. Its good to give the body this break from meat (but more importantly dairy) and help cleanse and detox. highly suggest fresh juicing as its terrific for energy. fasting is also great but I would suggest going through some juice fast first, and after wards... seek more information for those interested.
I fasted for a week once (water only) and can confirm, but the first steak after a long break is an even better feeling.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: vegans!

Post by Dolan »

musketjr wrote:'A', not 'the' consensus. there is no unqualified consensus for anything these days. if you think the notion of animals suffering is controversial, I don't know what to say to you. I don't see a connection whatsoever between (lack of) tragic awareness and the kind of intense suffering animals are put through in these industries.

it all seems, as you state yourself, to be a moot point because they do suffer and you advocate for some kind of benevolent exploitation, a contradiction in terms. in truth, you also believe in veganism, if you believe it is wrong to cause animals to suffer for frivolous reasons.

Nonhuman animals do feel pain, though I wouldn't use the word "suffering", because it involves also having a subjective experience of pain, which nonhuman animals are lacking.

We do have to eat food which is of animal origin (meat, butter, etc), so why not spare them the pain they go through in order to become our meal?

On the other hand, there was another argument I developed back when we had this discussion, when I argued that nonhuman animals can't be subjects of ethics, because they have no way of reciprocating moral behaviour. Again, it comes down to those mental abilities which they lack (theory of mind and subjectivity).

Some might argue that nonhuman animals are lucky for not having a subjective experience of the world. Just think about it: they don't have to go through years of school and then become unemployed, they don't have to put up with annoying mothers, corrupt politicians, bosses who are dicks, they don't have to learn arithmetics and trigonometry, they don't have to be wage slaves to put food on the table, they don't have to put up with feminism, they don't have to wear condoms, they don't have to talk carefully not to hurt their wives feelings. All this shit we have to put up with more than makes up for the short moment of pain they go through before getting processed for our consumption.

I think if we gave them the choice of becoming humans, most of them would prefer to go back to being just animals. I mean just imagine putting them through the ordeal of choosing between Trump and Clinton, paying rent and going to work just to be able to survive and have a box they can go back to and take a nap before they have to wake up and start all over again, etc. I think if you put them through all that, they would say "your species is insane, we'd rather put our necks on the knife and become your meal than having to live like you degenerate sad pathetic fucks".
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: vegans!

Post by deleted_user0 »

musketjr wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


suffering, or the ability to suffer is not a neccesary criterion to be given rights.


animals have negative rights, the right not to be... and for these their ability to suffer is of course the crux. you will find that law already ostensibly affords them these negative rights (see the case discussion i linked above, the 'aspirational wording of legislation'). what happens, though, is that these are a. not realised (not enforced in any meaningful way for animals whose exploitation serves a purpose society sanctions), and b. applied injuriously, eg. pet animals are protected by these negative rights, whereas food animals are not.

the argument is infact for the already existing sentiments, and the nascent but already existing political frameworks to reach their logical conclusion


Negative rights aren't much different from positive rights, they work the same way on the basic level. I don't see how the ability to suffer is crux for that, unless you decide it is. I'm not saying it can't be crux, i'm just asking why it ought to be more important than the other characteristics I have mentioned? For a negative right, the ability to grow could just as easily be used (the right not to be hampered in their natural growth). Or the ability to die (the right not to have their lifespain decreased or their death quickened), all of those would include animals, and they would exclude the food industry as it is now, while not mentioning suffering at all. So explain to me why suffering is championed as the main characteristic and not something else?

Animals in some countries are protected by the law, though I wouldn't really call that rights. Their protection usually is an extention of protecting humans against themself, because they forbid actions that society deems inapropriate and unworthy of human behaviour. And animals, the way they are now, and the way we are now as well, can't be given rights, because they can never be held to their end of the bargain. Rights is not a one way street, it goes both ways. Your right entails my right and visa versa. I could give a lyon a right not to be killed, but this means that the lyon now has a duty not to kill as well, but how will this be enforced? That's a big reason why for me it is silly to talk about animal rights.

To me the problem is that this is made a moral issue, while it can't ever be defended or explained as a moral issue, it largely isn't one anyway. Why would it be fundamentally wrong to eat honey, why would it be wrong to eat eggs? It isn't, assuming you care about animal suffering, it would only be wrong when it's produced in the way it is now, or something similar. So vegans take a standpoint in opposition to something else, as a protest, but then often pretend that it is more than a protest, that it is an universal truth we should all adhere to. It's a) not right, and b) it probably does their cause more harm than good. If you would take their ideas to the extreme, it would mean you can't eat (or drink or use etc) any animal products, even if no animal suffered for it, just because animals have the ability to suffer for it. Which for example would mean no baby could drink his mothers milk anymore, since ofcourse, this entire vegan argument is inspired by idea that we are no different (or not different enough) than other animals
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: vegans!

Post by deleted_user0 »

musketjr wrote:. in truth, you also believe in veganism, if you believe it is wrong to cause animals to suffer for frivolous reasons.


eh, how does that even follow? That's not a valid deduction musket, and I'm quite sure you know that. If you had said vegetarianism, perhaps it could follow (though the frivolous part makes that hard to maintain). But the position of veganism is so hard to maintain exactly because it doesn't just exclude the use of animals in cases where they would suffer. It just excludes the use of animals end of story, not just animals, but also anything that may come from them, up to wool, eggs, honey (which isnt even a physical product of the animal, so its fucking insane to forbid it)... And then many of them do keep pets, which is one of the biggest forms of animal cruelty we have on the planet after the food industry...
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: vegans!

Post by momuuu »

I do feel incog. It really bothers me when people start criticising me on their lifestyle while talking about how healthy they are eating and how good that is for them. If you really want to spend your life caring about what you are eating precisely thats fine but stop bothering me with it. If its really so great then you dont have to constantly talk about it to be happy with your choice.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV