Options

Fundamentalist Militant [Vegetarianism] and [Veganism]

1101113151618

Posts

  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote:
    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?
    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.

    Higher levels of intelligence/sapience/wisdom have opened to humans the ability to employ logic and act upon the conclusions, correct?

    If you admit we have certain moral obligations to other humans, then I'm unsure why you think other animals are excluded, except upon the basis of intelligence. But if you consider infanticide or euthanizing the mentally disabled acceptable (I don't know your moral stance on this), I respecfully concede.

    Edit: I see in the last post you have decided that you are arbitrarily speciesist and are okay with that. Fair enough.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    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.

    Er, most of the animals (all of the animals) that we eat are basically capable of peacefully coexisting with us.

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I made the claim that an attempt to define veganism as a logically objective ethos is an attempt that inevitably ends with a metaphysical claim or exposing one's beliefs to the illogical and arbitrary decisions that are simply made by the individual.

    The same could conversely be said of any sort of attempt to define being omnivorous as logically objective, and that would also be correct.

    Which is why, ultimately, who is "right" is a pointless argument. It's like arguing who has the "right" religion. Useless.

    What is of relevance, and was brought up here as an example, is arguments like weighing the environmental costs/benefits of maintaining omnivorous agriculture vs. a purely vegetation-based system. There's a level of universality to that line of discourse that deserves discussion, since we all consume vegetation and we're all (very specific biological ailments aside) physically capable of surviving on a vegan diet if it were made universally cost effective and feasible (which currently it isn't, but that's something that could theoretically change).

    Pony on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    What is of relevance, and was brought up here as an example, is arguments like weighing the environmental costs/benefits of maintaining omnivorous agriculture vs. a purely vegetation-based system. There's a level of universality to that line of discourse that deserves discussion, since we all consume vegetation and we're all (very specific biological ailments aside) physically capable of surviving on a vegan diet if it were made universally cost effective and feasible (which currently it isn't, but that's something that could theoretically change).

    This is actually an ethical argument, vulnerable to all the objections you listed above.
    Funnily enough, every argument about policy or life choices hinges on some sort of ethical assumption. Dismissing these things as arbitrary or inaccessible to reason makes a significant chunk of human discourse impossible.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I made the claim that an attempt to define veganism as a logically objective ethos is an attempt that inevitably ends with a metaphysical claim or exposing one's beliefs to the illogical and arbitrary decisions that are simply made by the individual.

    The same could conversely be said of any sort of attempt to define being omnivorous as logically objective, and that would also be correct.

    Which is why, ultimately, who is "right" is a pointless argument. It's like arguing who has the "right" religion. Useless.

    Do you agree with Hach that this is essentially a nihilistic argument? (I thought that's what you said, Hach, don't want to put words in your mouth)

    I'd certainly be dining on human flesh every night, if it wasn't for the Man.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited May 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    I'd certainly be dining on human flesh every night, if it wasn't for the Man.

    The paradox this is under the right reading is a source of great amusement for me.

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    What is of relevance, and was brought up here as an example, is arguments like weighing the environmental costs/benefits of maintaining omnivorous agriculture vs. a purely vegetation-based system. There's a level of universality to that line of discourse that deserves discussion, since we all consume vegetation and we're all (very specific biological ailments aside) physically capable of surviving on a vegan diet if it were made universally cost effective and feasible (which currently it isn't, but that's something that could theoretically change).

    This is actually an ethical argument, vulnerable to all the objections you listed above.
    Funnily enough, every argument about policy or life choices hinges on some sort of ethical assumption. Dismissing these things as arbitrary or inaccessible to reason makes a significant chunk of human discourse impossible.

    I think that when you can establish a universality of common interest you have an actual road to walk towards people, in terms of discourse.

    "Hey guys, you don't hate the environment/you'd like healthier food to be more accessible and affordable, right?" is a pretty universal ethical value to most people.

    "But the suffering of the cows!" is one that is less so, and one that ultimately makes a foolhardy approach to trying to convince anyone of anything.

    Pony on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot 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.

    We've established 'communication' with many animal species after years of having claws and teeth gnashed at us through (un)intentional domestication.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    Actually, yes there is!

    For example, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with a great many omnivores, regardless of their viewpoints on elk hunting or eating fried chicken.

    But the militant finger-wagging, screaming about the suffering, and other such overdramatic tactics exhibited by the more militant fringe of veganism basically does absolutely nothing of value.

    Pony on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    Actually, yes there is!

    For example, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with a great many omnivores, regardless of their viewpoints on elk hunting or eating fried chicken.

    But the militant finger-wagging, screaming about the suffering, and other such overdramatic tactics exhibited by the more militant fringe of veganism basically does absolutely nothing of value.

    There are a great many people who think "fuck the environment, I've only got 50 more years anyway" so those kinds of inroads to discourse are not universal either.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    Actually, yes there is!

    For example, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with a great many omnivores, regardless of their viewpoints on elk hunting or eating fried chicken.

    But the militant finger-wagging, screaming about the suffering, and other such overdramatic tactics exhibited by the more militant fringe of veganism basically does absolutely nothing of value.

    There are a great many people who think "fuck the environment, I've only got 50 more years anyway" so those kinds of inroads to discourse are not universal either.

    But certainly more useful than PETA screaming about what a monster I am, no?

    Pony on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    My take on vegetarian food has always been that it only works when its not trying to fake being other foods, and the fact that so many vegetarians believe their substitutes taste "great" or "better then the real thing" is mostly a comment on how poorly made most US meat products are, rather than the tastiness of tofurkey. The gourmet trend in the US gives me some hope that that situation, will gravitate towards the same kind of situation that craft beer has become, where there will be a good number of small/local producers that turn out a high-quality product at decent prices, and maybe force larger companies to at least up there game a little bit.

    The thing I have the hardest time understanding is that I see vegetarianism(and especially veganism) very similar to saying "I only eat Japaneses food". You aren't just declining McFattyBurgers or chicken nuggets, but coq au vin and beef bourguignon. The limitedness feels senseless, like only listening to one incredibly narrow genre of music.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    Actually, yes there is!

    For example, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with a great many omnivores, regardless of their viewpoints on elk hunting or eating fried chicken.

    But the militant finger-wagging, screaming about the suffering, and other such overdramatic tactics exhibited by the more militant fringe of veganism basically does absolutely nothing of value.

    No, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with YOU because it meets YOUR arbitrary requirements for being a logical argument, despite relying on the same principles and assumptions you dismiss earlier.

    This is blatantly apparent when we take a cursory examination at your language, as apparently the envinronmental argument is logical whereas arguments about suffering are "militant finger-wagging" and "screaming." Are there no militant, finger-waving environmental vegans? Are there no militant, finger-waving omnivores?

    Which is all besides the point anyways because vegetarians and vegans are not obligated to justify their diet to you.

    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
    The thing I have the hardest time understanding is that I see vegetarianism(and especially veganism) very similar to saying "I only eat Japaneses food". You aren't just declining McFattyBurgers or chicken nuggets, but coq au vin and beef bourguignon. The limitedness feels senseless, like only listening to one incredibly narrow genre of music.

    Do you really not understand that the choice of food has a moral dimension as well as an aesthetic one?
    Listening exclusively to 1970s punk music, for instance, would not seem all that narrow if listening to any other kind of music entailed killing things.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I have yet to enjoy a vegetarian product emulating a meat product.

    However, I have enjoyed many vegetarian dishes that contain no meat and contain no atttempted meat.

    Question for all the vegans/vegetarians out there:

    If cultured meat were made palatable (it currently really isn't but that's a technological limitation that will change), would you eat it? Would you consider it an ethical foodstuff?

    I'm curious as to where people stand on this, because amongst my non-omnivorous friends it proves to be a divisive issue.

    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
    The thing I have the hardest time understanding is that I see vegetarianism(and especially veganism) very similar to saying "I only eat Japaneses food". You aren't just declining McFattyBurgers or chicken nuggets, but coq au vin and beef bourguignon. The limitedness feels senseless, like only listening to one incredibly narrow genre of music.

    If you're doing it for ethical reasons, then refusing to eat all types of meat is no weirder than refusing to steal all types of jewelry. Which is to say: not weird at all.

    MrMister 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: »
    If cultured meat were made palatable (it currently really isn't but that's a technological limitation that will change), would you eat it? Would you consider it an ethical foodstuff?

    Yes.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    If cultured meat were made palatable (it currently really isn't but that's a technological limitation that will change), would you eat it? Would you consider it an ethical foodstuff?

    Yes.

    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    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: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    Pony on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    I know that I have never found arguments for total veganism persuasive. I wager this is common, since there aren't many vegans in this thread.

    Which is not to say that there is no rational basis to abstain from eating cultured meat. I mean, is it safe?

    Hachface on
  • Options
    ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    I know that I have never found arguments for total veganism persuasive. I wager this is common, since there aren't many vegans in this thread.

    Which is not to say that there is no rational basis to abstain from eating cultured meat. I mean, is it safe?

    For some reason the concept is creepier to me than eating animals. But if they get it working well on a mass scale and it doesn't turn out to have crazy fucked up side-effects I'll be down.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Options
    LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    There's also the irrational distrust of science. I suspect these are the same people who insist on eating organic food because they don't want to consume "bad chemicals".

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • 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: »
    I know that I have never found arguments for total veganism persuasive. I wager this is common, since there aren't many vegans in this thread.

    Which is not to say that there is no rational basis to abstain from eating cultured meat. I mean, is it safe?

    I understand abstaining from milk and cheese because their production is intimately intertwined with, and sometimes carried on in the manner of, the commercial farming of cattle. Similarly, even cage free hens are subject to pretty shitty lives.

    But when it comes down to stuff like honey and yeast I don't think there's any good argument there.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    There's also the irrational distrust of science. I suspect these are the same people who insist on eating organic food because they don't want to consume "bad chemicals".

    Hopefully it's more of an irrational distrust of the R&D departments of multinational corporations.

    Because that I understand.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    yeast? there are vegans who don't eat YEAST?

    Arch on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    I know that I have never found arguments for total veganism persuasive. I wager this is common, since there aren't many vegans in this thread.

    Which is not to say that there is no rational basis to abstain from eating cultured meat. I mean, is it safe?

    Safe? Yes.

    Gross? Yeah, according to everyone who tried it, it's nasty slime.

    That's why it's not caught on with any investors. Until someone can think of a way to like, electrically induce the culture to turn into a steak or something, nobody's going to be interested.

    But, in theory, that's a surmountable hurdle.

    What's a much larger argument, and has scientists on both sides of the table shouting, is if you could make cultured meat tasty and appealing and economically viable to sell and produce... would the environmental impact of its production be more or less deleterious on the environment than current livestock farming?

    All logic of course points to way less, but you've still got scientists arguing that it'd be worse based pretty much solely on the current highly inefficient way it is produced in small batches, which some moronic economist or something wrote large into a statistic and was like "this would be orders of magnitude worse than the cattle industry!"

    which is nonsense and an example of bad research at work.

    Pony on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Interesting. What's the rub for you on this one? The lack of animal suffering involved?

    Yep.

    Understandable. I find myself baffled at vegans who are nonetheless opposed to the concept because it is an "animal product" when in reality the production of it doesn't really involve animals at all.

    It makes me wonder if they've critically examined their own viewpoints sufficiently.

    People still refuse to use data that Nazis gathered from experimenting on their victims. I don't know if I'd agree with that, the deed being done 60-70 years ago.

    After a few generations, there wouldn't really be any vegan resistance.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Vegans who are anti-honey mystify me.

    I wonder if they only adhere to the stance out of a misguided attempt to make their "NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS" viewpoint absolute and without exception for the sake of having a firm belief system.

    Pony on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    I know that I have never found arguments for total veganism persuasive. I wager this is common, since there aren't many vegans in this thread.

    Which is not to say that there is no rational basis to abstain from eating cultured meat. I mean, is it safe?

    I understand abstaining from milk and cheese because their production is intimately intertwined with, and sometimes carried on in the manner of, the commercial farming of cattle. Similarly, even cage free hens are subject to pretty shitty lives.

    But when it comes down to stuff like honey and yeast I don't think there's any good argument there.

    Wait what's wrong with yeast?

    Hachface on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Vegans who are anti-honey mystify me.

    I wonder if they only adhere to the stance out of a misguided attempt to make their "NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS" viewpoint absolute and without exception for the sake of having a firm belief system.

    technically

    bees die during collection: some are actually crushed removing the combs from the hive

    in addition the smoking process can asphyxiate some of them as well

    so

    Arch on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Vegans who are anti-honey mystify me.

    I wonder if they only adhere to the stance out of a misguided attempt to make their "NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS" viewpoint absolute and without exception for the sake of having a firm belief system.

    technically

    bees die during collection: some are actually crushed removing the combs from the hive

    in addition the smoking process can asphyxiate some of them as well

    so

    i gueeessssss

    but isn't the pain capacity of insects to actually register suffering sort of debated in the entomology community anyway?

    i mean if you pull the wings off a bee it'll obviously flail about as if it is in pain

    but has a conclusion been reached that it actually is?

    or is that crustaceans i am thinking of

    i know there's a huge debate in biology on the subject of invertebrate nervous systems

    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
    Hachface wrote: »
    Wait what's wrong with yeast?

    it's... ALIVE!

    Yeah, I don't get it, but I'm pretty sure I've met at least one who needed special bread. I may have entirely fabricated that though.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Vegans who are anti-honey mystify me.

    I wonder if they only adhere to the stance out of a misguided attempt to make their "NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS" viewpoint absolute and without exception for the sake of having a firm belief system.

    technically

    bees die during collection: some are actually crushed removing the combs from the hive

    in addition the smoking process can asphyxiate some of them as well

    so

    i gueeessssss

    but isn't the pain capacity of insects to actually register suffering sort of debated in the entomology community anyway?

    i mean if you pull the wings off a bee it'll obviously flail about as if it is in pain

    but has a conclusion been reached that it actually is?

    or is that crustaceans i am thinking of

    i know there's a huge debate in biology on the subject of invertebrate nervous systems

    i am fairly certain they all have nociceptors; as to what that means it is hard to say

    Hell i think even cnidarians have nociceptors, but don't quote me on that

    Arch on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    many jainists won't eat anything made with yeast

    jainists are really, really hardcore about the non-injury of life thing

    Pony on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    I suppose if your point is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WHY EVEN ARGUE ABOUT IT" that's, uh, fine. I won't agree but obviously there's not much we can do to enact a meaningful argument so, perhaps ironically, its a moot point.

    Actually, yes there is!

    For example, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with a great many omnivores, regardless of their viewpoints on elk hunting or eating fried chicken.

    But the militant finger-wagging, screaming about the suffering, and other such overdramatic tactics exhibited by the more militant fringe of veganism basically does absolutely nothing of value.

    No, the environmental argument is one that will hold muster with YOU because it meets YOUR arbitrary requirements for being a logical argument, despite relying on the same principles and assumptions you dismiss earlier.

    This is blatantly apparent when we take a cursory examination at your language, as apparently the envinronmental argument is logical whereas arguments about suffering are "militant finger-wagging" and "screaming." Are there no militant, finger-waving environmental vegans? Are there no militant, finger-waving omnivores?

    Which is all besides the point anyways because vegetarians and vegans are not obligated to justify their diet to you.

    I don't know of many omnivores that give a damn what other people eat. Because as an omnivore, you eat everything and really don't have an opinion about food ethics or morality. Since it's all fair game, why care what others shovel in their mouth? I don't think you're doing anything wrong, it's not violating some sort of value I have.

    Vegans on the other hand view their entire consumption through a moral lens. This leads to those who aren't following their views to being immoral, or doing unethical things. Those of us that don't buy into it, have to deal with the lecturing and the "you are doing something wrong" nonsense.

    I think the environmental argument works. Honestly I don't really care how my food dies. Shoot it, behead it, whatever, not my issue. I also really don't care that much how it lives out it's life.... it's a cow. However I do care that mass scale meat production creates all sorts of problems that can simply be avoided by free range farming. For this reason I'm willing to support small farms and I don't support industrial farms.

    Most people don't like having another persons code of ethics and morality shoved on them. Which is what the majority of the vegans do. The PETA whackos are to the extreme end of this though.
    Hopefully it's more of an irrational distrust of the R&D departments of multinational corporations.

    I'd be leery of it, why? Monsanto.

    nstf on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Wait what's wrong with yeast?

    it's... ALIVE!

    Yeah, I don't get it, but I'm pretty sure I've met at least one who needed special bread. I may have entirely fabricated that though.

    I haven't met a vegan who didn't enjoy a cold beer. Unless they were straight edge.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Wait what's wrong with yeast?

    it's... ALIVE!

    Yeah, I don't get it, but I'm pretty sure I've met at least one who needed special bread. I may have entirely fabricated that though.

    Yeast is a fungus so if your ethical system doesn't permit you to eat that... well...

    Maybe there was something else in the bread?

    I don't know. Yeast doesn't even make crazysense.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Wait what's wrong with yeast?

    it's... ALIVE!

    Yeah, I don't get it, but I'm pretty sure I've met at least one who needed special bread. I may have entirely fabricated that though.

    Yeast is a fungus so if your ethical system doesn't permit you to eat that... well...

    Maybe there was something else in the bread?

    I don't know. Yeast doesn't even make crazysense.

    I have seen someone decry Diatomaceous earth

    Arch on
Sign In or Register to comment.