Options

Fundamentalist Militant [Vegetarianism] and [Veganism]

191012141518

Posts

  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Try again please.

    I can't try much of anything unless you actually explain why vegetarianism is supposed to be illogical.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    And I think you need a more substantial post if you're going to make some kind of disagreement with me on this here.

    But there isn't really anything to disagree with. First you said that vegetarianism is illogical and based on a faulty metaphysics, and then you said that it is stupid to believe that there is some word-spirit whose essence inhabits all animals and makes us equal. But the thing is that the second part doesn't entail the first.

    In other words, yes, believing in Gaia is irrational. Good thing vegetarians don't have to believe in Gaia!

    Except that wasn't what I said, but that was a jolly good attempt to argue with arguments I'm not making.

    I even bolded the points you completely fabricated, in case you were wondering.

    Try again please.

    Come on man. You made a statement, refused to elaborate because the request to elaborate was catty, now your complaining that he assumed something inaccurate.

    Why don't you just elaborate instead of making him guess or ignore him if you think he is too rude to talk with.

    Fair enough.

    Since apparently, I wasn't clear enough in my original post, so unclear that it appears that some have decided to simply outright invent points I didn't make, I'll clarify.

    If you are an idealogical vegan, ie your reasons for veganism are based on your idealogical beliefs, that is perfectly acceptable. If that is what you believe, that is what you believe. I am completely comfortable with accepting a wide multitude of beliefs regardless of my personal feelings on them, provided of course they aren't being used to inflict harm on others. But, unless you're some violent A.L.F. wacko, chances are as a vegan your beliefs are completely harmless to anyone. Even if you're a preachy goose in the eyes of people who know you, there's far worse things a person can be than a little pushy about their harmless beliefs.

    However, your beliefs aren't founded on logical or objectively quantifiable principles. They might be internally consistent within your own mind, but subjected to external scrutiny they don't hold up.

    I'll elaborate on this point, since it appears to cause confusion.

    The foundation of any argument in favor of veganism (or more accurately, against an omnivorous diet) can ultimately summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals.

    2. It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority.

    I'll examine both of these points individually.

    First, lets start with "It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals".

    The logic problem with this value system is an paradoxical one. It holds that I should not eat a deer, because a deer is my equal, and I should no more kill and eat the deer than I myself would want to be killed and eaten. However, it also follows that I am equal to the wolf. The wolf may eat the deer without raising an ethical problem, because it is a wolf and that is its nature. Yet, somehow, as a human, it is not my nature to eat the deer as the wolf does, because... well, of that I'm unsure, but bear with me as I explore it.

    Certainly, we evolved from omnivorous creatures biologically speaking, and are fully in possession of omnivorous biological features (canine teeth, for example), and our dietary requirements for substances such as proteins are such that they are easily (but by no means, absolutely necessarily) satisfied by the consumption of meat.

    An argument as to our nature is ultimately either a biological one (in which case, we're clearly biologically inclined towards an omnivorous diet as our "natural" one) or a moral one. Establishing our "moral nature" is a metaphysical question, not a physical or logical one. It's one arbitrarily established, chosen as such by the people making the claim, and nothing more.

    So then, if we are equal to both the deer and the wolf, why then is our moral nature so divorced from our biological nature in a way that is completely unique to mankind? Is it our intellect? Our ability to farm the land agriculturally, allowing us to substitute any sort of meat requirement in our diet with vegetation?

    How is that an argument of nature, then? After all, mankind didn't always have agriculture. We were hunters as well as gatherers once, and that is far closer to our biological natures than farming ever was. I'm not saying that this sort of life is preferable to agriculture; far from it! But then, I'm not the one arguing our equality to deer and wolves.

    So, at what point did we acquire this moral mandate to live solely off the land we have agriculturally altered to our needs? At what point during the natural evolutionary process of humanity did we gain a moral obligation to no longer hunt or eat other animals as the wolf does?

    And ultimately, how does this (biologically speaking) very new and completely unique role still classify us as equals? This is where the argument's logic becomes implosive: You should not animals because animals are your equals, but other animals are allowed to eat animals and you're not because... well... because you should know better! Because we don't have to anymore!

    How is that an equality argument?

    Alright, there's that, but what if as an idealogical vegan you say outright that

    "It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority."

    Now, this one doesn't have the paradoxical issues of the first argument, since it doesn't even pretend that we are the equals of animals.

    Nonetheless, it still begs a question: For what reason does our superiority to other animals behoove upon us the responsibility to no longer eat them as we have done for the entirety of our existence? Is it farming, again? I mean, farming is the only way that a population of our current size can sustain itself entirely on a vegan diet, so it's essentially a requirement for us to fulfill this new ethical mandate.

    Where is this mandate coming from, anyway? Christians who invoke a commandment can point to a specified rote from on-high that states that they shall not do certain things, but where are you coming from? What is the origin of this belief?

    Ultimately, there's no answer to this question that comes from anywhere except an appeal to a metaphysical authority ("Because it's Mother Nature, man!") or an appeal to emotion ("Because animals don't need to suffer anymore to fulfill our dietary needs! We don't need to do this as enlightened Westerners with a functioning economy and agricultural system! The animals are suffering and don't need to.")

    Neither of those arguments are logical. They're just appeals to "objective morality" in the opinion of people who simply decided it to be so, founded on metaphysics or emotional reactions that are obviously unshared by the majority of humanity both now and historically through-out the entirety of our existence.

    Pony on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ntsf- just because you think it tastes nasty does not mean the food is "not fit to be eaten by humans"

    i mean i think mountain oysters are nasty but i know lots of people enjoy them

    my point is tone down the rhetoric a bit

    Arch on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Try again please.

    I can't try much of anything unless you actually explain why vegetarianism is supposed to be illogical.

    'Cause ethics aren't real.

    Duh.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    The foundation of any argument in favor of veganism (or more accurately, against an omnivorous diet) can ultimately summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals.

    2. It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority.

    Except those aren't the foundations of most arguments in favor of veganism or vegetarianism, especially the first one.

    This makes your entire response one giant strawman.

    Read some Peter Singer, for fuck's sake.

    Edit: And while we're at it, I must have missed where, in the course of a discussion of ethics, that pointing out when someone's actions cause pain and suffering to other people or animals can be handwaved away with the phrase "an appeal to emotion".

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    That's it, Pony. You have them all nailed. Seeing MM bowing and whispering gibberish into his crystals while Quid and Arch complete the rule of three. Maybe Qingu comes by with his incense smudge later.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    The foundation of any argument in favor of veganism (or more accurately, against an omnivorous diet) can ultimately summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals.

    2. It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority.

    How to post stupid nonsense in the vegetarian thread:

    Step one: Concoct a gigantic strawman that all vegans must adhere to.

    Step two: ???

    Step three: Profit.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    man quid ain't even vegetarian; hes a false idol

    Arch on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    my point is when we summon the vegan old god gaia with out mystic asceticism, quid will be the first eaten

    the irony will be thick as butter

    Arch on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    man quid ain't even vegetarian; hes a false idol

    Sorry I'd say Rad I guess but Quid's the one doing the posting out of that little unit.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    The foundation of any argument in favor of veganism (or more accurately, against an omnivorous diet) can ultimately summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals.

    2. It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority.

    Except those aren't the foundations of most arguments in favor of veganism or vegetarianism, especially the first one.

    This makes your entire response one giant strawman.

    Read some Peter Singer, for fuck's sake.

    Peter Singer bases his ethical system on a sanctity of the entirety of life, holding animal life as equal to human life.

    Is that a bit reductionist of the man's ethics, which are a touch more complicated than that? Yes, ultimately, it is, and I admit that.

    But nonetheless, it remains his claim that animal life is equal to human life and he's the man who coined the phrase speciesism to refer to the act of elevating human privilege over that of animals.

    So uh...

    Pony on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Neither of those arguments are logical. They're just appeals to "objective morality" in the opinion of people who simply decided it to be so, founded on metaphysics or emotional reactions that are obviously unshared by the majority of humanity both now and historically through-out the entirety of our existence.

    That's an argument about the source and nature of ethics as a general subject of inquiry, not an argument for or against any particular ethical claims; everything you say here applies just as much to "don't rape that guy" as it does to "don't eat that elk."

    Regardless of the metaphysical foundations of morals, I think we all agree that they're sufficient to support "don't rape that guy." So why can't they support "don't eat that elk?"

    Alternately, as Hatchface put it, your point seems to come down to:
    'Cause ethics aren't real.

    Duh.

    Which is not very compelling.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    my point is when we summon the vegan old god gaia with out mystic asceticism, quid will be the first eaten

    the irony will be thick as butter

    In her house at Whole Foods dead Gaia lies dreaming.

    Ia! Ia! Tofu fhtagn!

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    ntsf- just because you think it tastes nasty does not mean the food is "not fit to be eaten by humans"

    i mean i think mountain oysters are nasty but i know lots of people enjoy them

    my point is tone down the rhetoric a bit

    I'd file mountain oysters under a food I wouldn't inflict on someone. Though I'm sure somewhere, somebody is whipping up a batch of tofu to try and imitate them... though googling vegetarian mountain oysters lead to some disturbing images.

    People eat and like roadkill, and I'd say that's not fit to be eaten by humans as well.

    Which brings up a side thing... is it unethical or cruel to eat an animal that was already killed? If we just ate carrion would that be alright?

    nstf on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    my point is when we summon the vegan old god gaia with out mystic asceticism, quid will be the first eaten

    the irony will be thick as butter

    In her house at Whole Foods dead Gaia lies dreaming.

    Ia! Ia! Tofu fhtagn!

    i love this post

    Arch on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Regardless of the metaphysical foundations of morals, I think we all agree that they're sufficient to support "don't rape that guy."

    ...

    Show your work.
    :winky:

    Hachface on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I did not know you were an Anarchist-Nihilist Pony.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Show your work.
    :winky:

    Hatchface, we've been over this, and it doesn't count if he was asking for it, for instance, by dressing as a cowboy or going running in track shorts.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    The foundation of any argument in favor of veganism (or more accurately, against an omnivorous diet) can ultimately summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. It is wrong to eat animals because animals are our equals.

    2. It is wrong to eat animals because as humans, we are superior to animals and have responsibilities behooved upon us by virtue of that superiority.

    Except those aren't the foundations of most arguments in favor of veganism or vegetarianism, especially the first one.

    This makes your entire response one giant strawman.

    Read some Peter Singer, for fuck's sake.

    Peter Singer bases his ethical system on a sanctity of the entirety of life, holding animal life as equal to human life.

    Is that a bit reductionist of the man's ethics, which are a touch more complicated than that? Yes, ultimately, it is, and I admit that.

    But nonetheless, it remains his claim that animal life is equal to human life and he's the man who coined the phrase speciesism to refer to the act of elevating human privilege over that of animals.

    So uh...

    No. You've completely missed the point of Singer's arguments if you assume that he means that in every case, all human life is equal to all animal life. Claiming that humans are in all cases equal to animals isn't even close to what Singer claims.

    So uh...try again?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Neither of those arguments are logical. They're just appeals to "objective morality" in the opinion of people who simply decided it to be so, founded on metaphysics or emotional reactions that are obviously unshared by the majority of humanity both now and historically through-out the entirety of our existence.

    That's an argument about the source and nature of ethics, not an argument for or against any particular ethical claims; everything you say here applies just as much to "don't rape that guy" as it does to "don't eat that elk."

    Regardless of the metaphysical foundations of morals, I think we all agree that they're sufficient to support "don't rape that guy." So why can't they support "don't eat that elk?"

    They totally can! And they're equally arbitrary. Unless you believe in a metaphysical authority, the entirety of all ethics are simply agreed-upon systems designed on some level or another to benefit the participants.

    There's nothing wrong with that, but the problem with the "animal=humans" point is this:

    It's easy to establish as a societal law and ethical code that we shouldn't rape, murder, or steal from other humans. They are our same species, after all, and any crime inflicted upon another human could just as easily be inflicted upon us, and nobody really desires a "survival of the fittest" anarchy scenario.

    Except people who read too much zombie apocalypse fiction, I guess, but I digress...

    We can apply these laws equally to all humans. It's arbitrarily decided upon by we the species, but it's logically consistent.

    When you start elevating animals to equal status to humans, then it gets a little queer. Why, I ask you, is it ethical for the wolf to eat the deer (despite being the deer's equal!) while it is not ethical for a human to do the same? Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    Pony on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I did not know you were an Anarchist-Nihilist Pony.

    I am neither of those things.

    Pony on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    You don't have to think an animal is your equal in order to think that you shouldn't eat it. I don't think that infants are my equal either--and, much like tigers, I don't hold them responsible for the things that they do--but I nonetheless avoid eating them.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    ..

    We can apply these laws equally to all humans. It's arbitrarily decided upon by we the species, but it's logically consistent.

    We have laws against animal cruelty. Dog fights are illegal.

    You're being a silly goose and creating this bizarre pedantic strawman vegetarian mythos which nobody is buying.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Neither of those arguments are logical. They're just appeals to "objective morality" in the opinion of people who simply decided it to be so, founded on metaphysics or emotional reactions that are obviously unshared by the majority of humanity both now and historically through-out the entirety of our existence.

    That's an argument about the source and nature of ethics, not an argument for or against any particular ethical claims; everything you say here applies just as much to "don't rape that guy" as it does to "don't eat that elk."

    Regardless of the metaphysical foundations of morals, I think we all agree that they're sufficient to support "don't rape that guy." So why can't they support "don't eat that elk?"

    They totally can! And they're equally arbitrary. Unless you believe in a metaphysical authority, the entirety of all ethics are simply agreed-upon systems designed on some level or another to benefit the participants.

    You kind of contradict yourself here. If the intent of ethics is to benefit the ethical agents (debatable, but whatever I'll go with it) then they are not arbitrary. It would be possible for vegetarians/vegans to mount a powerful argument for their own ethical systems if they can demonstrate that it provides a greater benefit than the meat-eater's ethics. For instance: eating vegetarian is better for the environment.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I did not know you were an Anarchist-Nihilist Pony.

    I am neither of those things.

    The foundation of any of your arguments against veganism (or more accurately, in support of an omnivorous diet) can be summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. Veganism is wrong because life has no intrinsic value.

    2. Veganism is wrong because we should not be bound by arbitrary non-natural laws.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    It's easy to establish as a societal law and ethical code that we shouldn't rape, murder, or steal from other humans. They are our same species, after all, and any crime inflicted upon another human could just as easily be inflicted upon us, and nobody really desires a "survival of the fittest" anarchy scenario.

    This doesn't apply equally across the human species, though. Some indigenous or poorly developed ethnicity doesn't recognize the same mores or laws as a first-world nation, but we're not allowed to go out and hunt them for sport.
    When you start elevating animals to equal status to humans, then it gets a little queer. Why, I ask you, is it ethical for the wolf to eat the deer (despite being the deer's equal!) while it is not ethical for a human to do the same? Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    Highly developed sapience. You acknowledge this in your premises then never apply it anywhere else. There's no paradox here.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    You don't have to think an animal is your equal in order to think that you shouldn't eat it. I don't think that infants are my equal either--and, much like tigers, I don't hold them responsible for the things that they do--but I nonetheless avoid eating them.

    I find it interesting that you don't classify infants as your equal. My ethical viewpoints on humanity is, as Singer would define it, a speciesist one; I consider all humans to be equals, and I believe that human beings have intrinsic rights (as arbitrary a decision as any ethical one, of course, and admittedly so). My own personal ethical system could be loosely defined as one of consequentialist utilitarianism, but that's a far larger discussion than a topic on veganism, I think.

    I don't see babies as tigers or elk as men, and I'm curious as to where the foundation of your belief system lies. You don't have to get into specifics if you don't want, and if you don't have labels for it, that's okay too.

    Pony on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    You don't have to think an animal is your equal in order to think that you shouldn't eat it. I don't think that infants are my equal either--and, much like tigers, I don't hold them responsible for the things that they do--but I nonetheless avoid eating them.

    Careful with the equivocation in your use of the word "equal." In Peter Singer's case, he wasn't talking about equal in the sense of intellectual capacity, as I imagine you are by bringing up the infant, but in the ethical sense of possessing right-to-life.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    1) its 2+ times as expensive so this type of eating is really a luxury of the rich unless you really want to work your budget around it and give up other things.
    2) Labels fucking suck because things like "Free Range" don't actually mean what you think they mean.
    3) Even at places like Whole Foods you can't really tell where their meat comes from unless you check the farm on the package(if that is even on the label) and then try and do a ton of internet research. Which means its hard to find such things without going to a local farm and even then most farms do things like CSAs where you get fruits, veggies, eggs, and milk but it is harder to find ones where you can get meat.
    4) Most people don't have the time or energy to figure out 2 and 3.

    Relative to where you live.

    I live in a rural and highly agrarian society. I just came back from vacation. Took the back ways there. In the process me and the wife passed dozens of independently owned farms and chicken houses.

    It's ridiculously easy to get locally grown vegetables. They taste better and are priced almost the same.

    Same thing with meat. I don't think WalMart provides meat from local butchers, but I know the more regional chains do. These are places one can quickly drive out to and get a good look at them.

    I've done it.

    I know plenty of farmers who treat their livestock well.

    And this is in the event that we actually have to buy vegetables. Personal gardens are plentiful around here to the point where someone is giving me sack fulls of heirloom tomatoes, which in turn get given away to others because I can't eat that many damn tomatoes.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    It's easy to establish as a societal law and ethical code that we shouldn't rape, murder, or steal from other humans. They are our same species, after all, and any crime inflicted upon another human could just as easily be inflicted upon us, and nobody really desires a "survival of the fittest" anarchy scenario.

    This doesn't apply equally across the human species, though. Some indigenous or poorly developed ethnicity doesn't recognize the same mores or laws as a first-world nation, but we're not allowed to go out and hunt them for sport.

    I don't think I suggested that a person having a different ethical foundation than you somehow lessens them to a lower status than yourself.
    Octoparrot wrote:
    When you start elevating animals to equal status to humans, then it gets a little queer. Why, I ask you, is it ethical for the wolf to eat the deer (despite being the deer's equal!) while it is not ethical for a human to do the same? Why does our ethics of equality apply to us in an unequal fashion when compared to the animals we consider equals?

    There's the paradox.

    Highly developed sapience. You acknowledge this in your premises then never apply it anywhere else. There's no paradox here.

    And why does this sapience attach with it a greater ethical constraint placed upon us with regards to how we treat other species? Certainly, that sapience has come with a high level of empathetic responses to each other (exceptions abound for sociopaths and the like, of course) and as a result in most cultures on Earth we have a far more codified and regulated moral and legal system that is a unique trait of humanity's.

    But how does this end up applying to animals?

    Pony on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Careful with the equivocation in your use of the word "equal." In Peter Singer's case, he wasn't talking about equal in the sense of intellectual capacity, as I imagine you are by bringing up the infant, but in the ethical sense of possessing right-to-life.

    Even Peter Singer think that animals have fewer interests than humans do, and, as such, we have fewer duties towards them than we do towards another person. He's also infamous for supporting some qualified infanticide in print.
    Pony wrote:
    I don't see babies as tigers or elk as men, and I'm curious as to where the foundation of your belief system lies.

    Somewhere in the neighborhood of 'suffering is bad.' Tigers and elk aren't people, but they sure can suffer, and therefore we have ethical duties towards them.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    PelPel Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Pel wrote: »
    If it's a simple abbreviation for "Chili con Carne" then, what do you abbreviate "Chili con Lentil" to?

    You're right, it's just semantic nitpicking, and the commonly accepted usage of the term "Chili" includes meat, but that doesn't mean that another sort of soup cannot accurately call itself "Chili".

    To my experience, most vegetarian Chilis are an abomination, but really, a beef based chili is usually so heavily spiced that the beef is just filler anyways, so there is a lot of room for interpretation there.

    Come to charleston, I will make you some vegetarian chili (con frijoles) that will knock your socks off.

    bad picture but oh well
    tumblr_l2qm6herzg1qaninq

    I make both vegetarian and non-vegetarian chili and honestly I think my vegetarian chili is actually better. The ground beef really is just spiced filler.

    Arch your veggie chili looks sub par. You can convince me otherwise by mailing me some. :)

    I...I can try.

    That was really my worst batch; it was far too watery due to me making it in the morning in the crock pot and being like hurgbabbaalala i am half asleeep chopping and measuring blearrrrr

    Does look a bit watery but if Indian food has taught me anything it's to never judge a meal by its appearance. When you ship out the first batch put me on the mailing list!

    Pel on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Pel wrote: »
    If it's a simple abbreviation for "Chili con Carne" then, what do you abbreviate "Chili con Lentil" to?

    You're right, it's just semantic nitpicking, and the commonly accepted usage of the term "Chili" includes meat, but that doesn't mean that another sort of soup cannot accurately call itself "Chili".

    To my experience, most vegetarian Chilis are an abomination, but really, a beef based chili is usually so heavily spiced that the beef is just filler anyways, so there is a lot of room for interpretation there.

    Come to charleston, I will make you some vegetarian chili (con frijoles) that will knock your socks off.

    bad picture but oh well
    tumblr_l2qm6herzg1qaninq

    I make both vegetarian and non-vegetarian chili and honestly I think my vegetarian chili is actually better. The ground beef really is just spiced filler.

    Arch your veggie chili looks sub par. You can convince me otherwise by mailing me some. :)

    I...I can try.

    That was really my worst batch; it was far too watery due to me making it in the morning in the crock pot and being like hurgbabbaalala i am half asleeep chopping and measuring blearrrrr

    Does look a bit watery but if Indian food has taught me anything it's to never judge a meal by its appearance. When you ship out the first batch put me on the mailing list!

    If I can snag a vacuum sealer/sterilization equipment I may actually consider this

    Arch on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pel wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Semantic nitpickery, I suppose. Chili, as in the stew and not the pepper itself, is an abbreviation of chili con carne. I wouldn't go to the effort of baking a cayenne pie over it, but I can spare a couple of sentences' worth of corrective outrage online. Chili needs meet. Sushi needs rice.

    None of this means that "bean, pepper, and tomato stew" or "tuna sashimi" aren't tasty, of course.
    If it's a simple abbreviation for "Chili con Carne" then, what do you abbreviate "Chili con Lentil" to?

    Aren't lentils beans? They'd fit under the bean-pepper-tomato stew thing. Granted that's not much of an abbreviation, seeing as it's a longer and more cumbersome phrase.

    Arch wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Arch, you are clearly not human, dog, or goat. Perhaps you are some sort of hyperintelligent fungus.

    that would make me so happy you have no idea

    You do sound like a fun guy.
    sorry

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    And why does this sapience attach with it a greater ethical constraint placed upon us with regards to how we treat other species? Certainly, that sapience has come with a high level of empathetic responses to each other (exceptions abound for sociopaths and the like, of course) and as a result in most cultures on Earth we have a far more codified and regulated moral and legal system that is a unique trait of humanity's.

    But how does this end up applying to animals?

    Because we self-evidently know that humans can exercise ethical restraint when dealing with other humans and with other animals. We cannot say the same for how non-human animals interact with other non-human animals.

    What you're not seeing here is that claiming that humans should consider the suffering of non-human animals to be an important factor when deciding how to interact with those non-human animals (just as humans should consider the suffering of other humans as an important factor when deciding how to interact with them) doesn't mean that non-human animals are capable of doing the same.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    that was terrible bubba
    terribly AWESOME
    i love puns
    i have a problem

    Arch on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch: I would eat your chili. You should send me your chili!

    MrMister on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    stop giving me ideas to vacuum-pack and sell my chili

    Arch on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    It's easy to establish as a societal law and ethical code that we shouldn't rape, murder, or steal from other humans. They are our same species, after all, and any crime inflicted upon another human could just as easily be inflicted upon us, and nobody really desires a "survival of the fittest" anarchy scenario.

    This doesn't apply equally across the human species, though. Some indigenous or poorly developed ethnicity doesn't recognize the same mores or laws as a first-world nation, but we're not allowed to go out and hunt them for sport.
    And we're not allowed to go out and hunt them for sport because we know, as fellow humans, that they have highly-developed reasoning faculties and whether or not they are interested they absolutely are capable of coexisting with us peaceably. Not so for animals, whose regard for humans is either as a predator (run away!) as a companion (do what he says and he gives me food!) or, very rarely, as prey (mmm tasty human). We can establish effective communication with even the most hostile culture, after years of having arrows launched at our helicopters, if we are cautious and generous (and, in the worst case, willing to wait a few generations). There is no such communication possible with any species of animal.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I did not know you were an Anarchist-Nihilist Pony.

    I am neither of those things.

    The foundation of any of your arguments against veganism (or more accurately, in support of an omnivorous diet) can be summed up in these two concepts (either one, the other, or both):

    1. Veganism is wrong because life has no intrinsic value.

    2. Veganism is wrong because we should not be bound by arbitrary non-natural laws.

    To the same reductionist extent that I typified the primary thrusts of a vegan ethos, you could reduce my argument in support of an omnivorous diet to, in fact, both points.

    And, just as my own initial statement was minimal and required clarification and elaboration, I'll clarify and elaborate here.

    The reality is that, personal beliefs in metaphysics aside, life has no value beyond that which we attach to it. We attach value to it, of course, for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which we want others to attach the same value to our lives because we desire to continue to live.

    We don't attach that value equally to every organism that could be considered biologically "alive". Nobody does. Not even the most dedicated vegan does so, and anyone who claims such is being somewhat disingenuous.

    The inevitability is that we must attach some greater value to some life over others. Plants are biologically alive, although we all universally consider it acceptable to consume them without a pang of guilt. Insects are alive, but even the most dedicated friend of nature will not mourn a single crushed ant to the same extent they would mourn a close human companion, if they were even to mourn at all. They might go out of their way to attempt to avoid crushing insects, trampling plants un-necessarily, or otherwise interfere with life to the most minimal extent possible. Certainly, that's the practice of many Jainists, for example.

    Ultimately, we all create a framework, a series of borderlines, where we define some forms of "alive" to be of greater importance and sanctity than others. Peter Singer, for example, founds his belief on what life should be preserved if at all possible over others based on suffering. That living creatures that are capable of experiencing pain and suffering (which includes the vast majority of animals, human or not) should be spared that suffering if at all possible.

    As a utilitarian, I can respect that ethos, even though I may disagree with where his borderline lies.

    Ultimately, however, my borderline is a speciesist one (a word of Singer's own coining) and while I don't endorse animal cruelty and I am in favor of laws prohibiting it (as well as abominable factory farming practices) I nonetheless do not share his viewpoints of where those borders lie in their entirety.

    I can admit, however, that both our borders are arbitrary. Mine is based on my own ethical (and in my case, religious) beliefs, and his are based on his (possibly minus the religious part? Of that I do not know). They're both, essentially, "made up" and have their own individual logical problems.

    Which, ultimately, brings me back to my original point that the attempt to prove to a vegan that they are wrong is essentially as equally pointless as them trying to prove you are wrong.

    Both ethical value systems are constructs, and often faith-based ones at that, and thus cannot be argued as if they have some universally objective rational underpinning.

    Pony on
Sign In or Register to comment.