User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-21 at 3:45 AM UTCShit response. Try harder.
-
2018-03-21 at 3:48 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-21 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Yes, I recognize speciesism as a form of prejudice, just like racism and sexism.
We don't have a nature which demands bloodshed, that's ridiculous superstition. Even if we did, it would be a nature worth rebelling against. But we don't, because we don't wither and die when we fail to consume animal protein. Your argument has no real ground outside of this nebulous concept.
So weak... -
2018-03-21 at 4:08 AM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 4:21 AM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 5:06 AM UTCAnimal rights will be the next civil rights frontier.
-
2018-03-21 at 5:07 AM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 9 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enema Bandit Good luck being a vegetarian when the shit hits the fan. "We can just eat plants tho." Yeah, of course. That's why there's always an outbreak of cannibalism during times of war and famine. The 20th century was especially bad for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_cannibalism#20th_century
Things can only get worse.
I would definitely not be bothering with vegetarianism if the apocalypse happened, just saying -
2018-03-21 at 11:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Issue313 raised a similar point about moral agency earlier; what it means and how it can be applied varies by philosopher. Animal rights advocates argue that the concept should be extended to include nonhuman moral agents, on the basis that they have an explicit interest in living and they clearly suffer when their lives are threatened. I agree with this argument.
Then I might have to reconsider my plant intake, but I think it's very unlikely.
The prominent moral theory I'm referencing when I speak of the deontological argument is Kant's categorical imperative. Essentially, you do the right thing if you think it would be good that everyone else did it too. This is why we'd rewind movies before returning them to the store, chose not to defecate in the public pool, and started carrying around nondisposable water bottles to reduce pollution. It's also why I don't eat meat. Why wouldn't I advocate you stop eating meat when the whole point of my decision is predicated on the notion that others should too? The entire history of moral causes has been a struggle on the part of some people to convince others that there exists a more correct way of conducting themselves.
Plants can demonstrate an interest in their own continued existence as well. For instance when they sense a catipllier eating them (or even an audio recording of the sound of a catipllier eating a leaf) some plants will produce certain chemicals as a defense mechanism. I don't know if plants or animals can be considered moral agents but I don't know if that matters either. What is unlikely? Why? If you did have to reconsider your plant intake, what would you consume to stay alive? Would you try to stay alive?
I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all. The universe doesn't care one whit about our lives and it's up to us to make of them what we will. Sometimes awful things happen to innocent people or animals, so it goes. Sometimes the most beautiful things happen to awful people, so it goes. Sometimes everything works out just the way we want it to, so it goes. -
2018-03-21 at 1:06 PM UTCThe bottom line is we are part of nature. Nature made us omnivorous. To just eat meat or only vegetables is unnatural
-
2018-03-21 at 1:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick So after glancing at some articles about this "quinoa crisis" it's apparent to me that there are some predatory multinational food corporations, and what you need to understand is that veganism doesn't drive them, profits do. Yes, veganism has created the market, but vegans who eat quinoa aren't even privy to the decisions of the leadership in companies that meet that market demand. You can't really make a case against an entire diet on the basis of some unintended consequences of capitalism, especially when the people who operate that company are the only obviously responsible parties. Soya appears to be the prime offender, and an example of how simply being vegan doesn't mean you can't still exploit people.
Originally posted by Zanick It's not a hunter-prey relationship anymore, it's one of systematic exploitation on a genocidal scale and I have a hard time empathizing for those who operate it. As for the poor in Bolivia, why don't you provide me with a source so that I can respond with my interpretation?
And "Western fad diet"? Have you ever heard of or met a Hindu?
now i know youre trolling
it isnt biologically possible to be that stupid and still maintain the ability to continue basic physiological functions
what youve clearly established is that human beings require caloric consumption to exist and no matter what those calories consist of there will be a well concerted effort at harvesting those calories regardless of consequences or requirements. -
2018-03-21 at 1:24 PM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 1:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Animal rights will be the next civil rights frontier.
theres no reason why not. the retards that support that sort of nonsense are running out of stupid shit to whine about
hopefully they receive their darwin awards first so the normal people dont have to witness their retardation -
2018-03-21 at 2:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Plants can demonstrate an interest in their own continued existence as well. For instance when they sense a catipllier eating them (or even an audio recording of the sound of a catipllier eating a leaf) some plants will produce certain chemicals as a defense mechanism. I don't know if plants or animals can be considered moral agents but I don't know if that matters either. What is unlikely? Why? If you did have to reconsider your plant intake, what would you consume to stay alive? Would you try to stay alive?
I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all. The universe doesn't care one whit about our lives and it's up to us to make of them what we will. Sometimes awful things happen to innocent people or animals, so it goes. Sometimes the most beautiful things happen to awful people, so it goes. Sometimes everything works out just the way we want it to, so it goes.
A defense mechanism isn't the same as wilfully defending themselves. I'm not about to take that as proof positive that plants are sentient, but supposing that they are and we're guilty of genocide against a surprisingly complex array of flora, then I'd review my diet and see if I can find alternatives. I think we've spent entirely too much time on this hypothetical.
I realize that the issue of whether or not animals have moral agency feels insignificant to you in the grand scheme of things, but my argument is that it shouldn't. It's only easy for you to ignore because there aren't consequences for you. If you feel obligated to help a human in need, I would say that you should also help an animal. Terrible things don't have to happen to them, but they only stop when we decide, most likely much later than that.
You can say that moral relativism is the truth, but I don't believe that you actually leave anything of your life that matters to you in the universe's hands. You have to decide for yourself which injustices you will or will not tolerate, and if you'd rather abdicate from that choice based on notions of nihilism or spiritual unity, that's your decision. Nothing absolves you of that responsibility, not even when you say it isn't there.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker The bottom line is we are part of nature. Nature made us omnivorous. To just eat meat or only vegetables is unnatural
Right, and because oil exists, we were obviously meant to operate motorcycles. And clearly, your intelligence would indicate that you weren't meant to survive past the cradle. Do nature a favor: find a rock, and beat yourself in the face with it until you stop twitching.
Originally posted by infinityshock what youve clearly established is that human beings require caloric consumption to exist and no matter what those calories consist of there will be a well concerted effort at harvesting those calories regardless of consequences or requirements.
Uh, do you need time to finish this thought, or are you going to let it stand as the nonargument that it is?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-21 at 2:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Plants can demonstrate an interest in their own continued existence as well. For instance when they sense a catipllier eating them (or even an audio recording of the sound of a catipllier eating a leaf) some plants will produce certain chemicals as a defense mechanism. I don't know if plants or animals can be considered moral agents but I don't know if that matters either. What is unlikely? Why? If you did have to reconsider your plant intake, what would you consume to stay alive? Would you try to stay alive?
As Zanick said, there's a difference between defense mechanism and intentional behavior. Even in humans, we have reflexes that can be disjoined intentional behavior. People with CIPA who can't feel pain or temperature differences can still reflexively withdraw a hand if exposed to fire, we flinch in anticipation of pain rather than its experience. Not every response to negative stimulus implies the ability to suffer.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-21 at 3:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker The bottom line is we are part of nature. Nature made us omnivorous. To just eat meat or only vegetables is unnatural
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature -
2018-03-21 at 3:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Uh, do you need time to finish this thought, or are you going to let it stand as the nonargument that it is?
what you need is some time to finish second grade and allow your mind to more fully develop so you can grasp a concept more complicated than if the shoe or the sock goes on first. -
2018-03-21 at 3:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature
That page is unnatural -
2018-03-21 at 3:31 PM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 3:37 PM UTCWe have a moral obligation to stop replying to this fucking thread.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
