User Controls
Posts by Zanick
-
2018-03-24 at 12:25 AM UTC in Jill, zattex, etc.Is it all free-association bundy gibberish?
-
2018-03-24 at 12:23 AM UTC in Jill, zattex, etc.Can somebody explain to me how these nicknames came about? For a while, I assumed "Zattex" was some bastardization of my handle because mine is the only one that begins with a 'Z', but I've realized since that it's associated with Infinijedi and I just don't understand why. As for "Jill" I really don't know what to think.
-
2018-03-24 at 12:17 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe It could be argued that plants also have an interest in their own continued existence, or that creatures like ants are thoughtless automatons who don't have any interests at all and simply driven by their own biological processes. Either way I don't really think it matters, what we consider to be a "moral act" or which organisms to have "moral agency" appears to be relative.
Erm, no, moral agency isn't a relative thing at the moment, it's exclusive, and that's what I'm on about. I think animals should be moral agents, and there are a few tough cases in their kingdom that are difficult to evaluate. Ants might be said to be one of them, but I'm satisfied with my assessment of a number of indicative behaviors (which they share with other organisms that I consider moral agents) that they do care about their lives. You haven't met any burden of proof with plants, however; you've only suggested that it's possible. If you want to keep pushing the claim that plants might satisfy my modified criteria for moral agency, you need to make a case for them.I don't like the way animals are treated in industrial farms and I do think that should change. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat, and I do think there are too many humans on this planet. If there is nothing you can provide to convince me that I have a moral obligation to stop eating meat I conclude that no such obligation exists and that morality is relative.
We can start on common ground: what is specifically your objection to large-scale animal agriculture, at the moment? -
2018-03-24 at 12:14 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Most of the bouvine/chicken population in the world is a direct product of commercial farming. I imagine cows would actually go extinct pretty quickly if no one bred and raised them. I've seen the argument made that we've managed to kill off most of the natural predators of deer in North America so without hunting they'd go through cyclic overpopulation/starvation periods. I'm a little skeptical of this since people who advance that argument tend to by hobbyist hunters but it could be true. People who are vegetarians on ethical consequentialist grounds typically look at it as a less important case. Maybe intervention in the form of regulated hunting is justified, maybe not, but in terms of number of animals and degree of suffering induced commercial meat production of cows and chickens totally eclipses the issue of hunting.
Yeah, the argument from ecology is at best a secondary concern for a lot of ethical vegetarians. Like you, I have my reservations about the kinds of people who typically argue that overpopulation is a real threat, but at the same time I think it's a possibility that the deontological argument (Regan's in particular) fails to address. I'm sure there's some modification of the typical moral claim to be had which accounts for practical barriers post-abolition, but I think most animal activists position are so starved for legislative success, they suffer from tunnel-vision. -
2018-03-24 at 12:06 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.Sploo is 100% correct, your intelligence is below average.
-
2018-03-23 at 11:46 PM UTC in Zanick, stop acting like you're interested in what people have to say.Just think about Infinigay as a scholar of something. It's enough to make one shudder.
-
2018-03-23 at 10:41 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?Alright, everybody, I've purchased some mylar and I'll let you know my findings. If I don't like it, I can always use it to make stuff for my cat.
-
2018-03-23 at 9:09 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?What, like mylar? Does that work well? I bought a mat for my cat which was made of that, and she seems to enjoy it.
-
2018-03-23 at 9:08 PM UTC in Attempt to psychoanalyze the user above you
-
2018-03-23 at 9:05 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 More blankets? Warmer blankets? Seal your windows? Layer up? Exercise?
I've got a laser thermometer that says my windows are good. Already layering and adding blankets, but a certain number of either just becomes impractical. I'm getting in some light exercise, walking a lot and aerobic stuff mostly, but I could add a bit of lifting and see how I feel.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Light a fire?
I've always wanted to be an arsonist, maybe this is the time to try it on. -
2018-03-23 at 9:01 PM UTC in Attempt to psychoanalyze the user above you
-
2018-03-23 at 8:59 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?
-
2018-03-23 at 8:53 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?
-
2018-03-23 at 8:44 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?I'd rather not wear a coat to bed. Thermogenics come to mind, but I can't use them late in the day and I'd rather not be constantly stimming any more than I already am.
Thoughts? -
2018-03-23 at 8:38 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Wear it on your head like a hat and cruise on down to the beach like a baller with your new jellyfish bud
No, NEVER. I hate hats that look like animals. Not for moral reasons, they just look stupid and I want to strangle the people who wear them.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Grabbing it with your bare hands and flinging it over the fence
That's true, but I was fishing for dangerous ideas that also keep my new guest alive. -
2018-03-23 at 8:34 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatOh, and what are the unsafe ways of removing it in this thought experiment? I'd like to explore those.
-
2018-03-23 at 8:29 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Jeremus Interesting. Let's say there is a jellyfish in your pool and the only safe way to remove it is to kill it.
(I promise, there's only one more question after this before I get to the point).
What do I think is ethical? Stop chlorinating and convert my pool into a jellyfish aquarium until it dies of natural causes. I'm not sure how it got there, but I'm not going to kill it.
What would actually happen is that I would scour the internet until I come up with a safe way to relocate it before attempting to, because I know they're delicate creatures and I don't want my ignorance to be its demise. -
2018-03-23 at 7:22 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Couldn't you say that about ants too? Why are they moral agents?
Erm, I wish I'd waited a minute before hitting "submit" now. As I said in the above post, ants demonstrate self-preservation and they have a social hierarchy, both of which are pretty good indicators that they care about their own lives and their communities. I can't personally verify whether they feel pain, but I don't really need to in order to decide that they probably don't want to be killed, and as I've stated, an animal's interest in its own life is one reasonable way to assign moral agency.Well I stated that I think it's the best argument put forth thus far but it hasn't convinced me that eating meat is wrong or that I have any moral obligation to do anything. As I said to Falcon, imo the problem isn't eating meat it's that there are too many humans.
If you inferred from his argument from ecology the position that we should reduce the human population and preserve animal agriculture as-is, I don't think I can provide anything to convince you of my own. -
2018-03-23 at 7:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Fox Paws Ants don’t “care” about survival. It’s a thoughtless stimulus response. Just as plants respond to negative stimuli.
The reason you consider the behavior of ants more than vegetation is because you have a bias to rely on anthropomorphic protoypes when interpreting whether a certain behavior indicates “caring” or “not caring” about survival, and when attributing moral agency.
And you've hit on an important concept: the faculty of care is essential to my understanding of a being's autonomy. Plants don't demonstrate care, only a blind following of crucial physiological programs. Ants, however, can be found behaving of their own accord. Just because they're hyperefficient in a community doesn't make them a single machine. If you require evidence to the contrary, consider that they have an established social hierarchy. For that matter, what about the appearance of an ant strikes you as anthropomorphic? -
2018-03-23 at 7:07 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Fox Paws You can call on me all you want, I won’t change and I don’t have an obligation to change. That’s your opinion.
The word “obligation” implies we don’t have any choice in the matter. It’s kind of a douchey way to phrase it.
Of course it's douchey, do you think people would have clicked if I said, "Come here and change your equally valid opinion if you want to"? There's a reason animal activists employ shock footage. Unless you make a strong claim, you can't expect people to reply with passion.
