User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-03-23 at 6:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatZanick why do ants running from your feet count as moral agents but plants trying to defend themselves against catiplliers does not?
Did you know the smell of freshly cut grass is their equivalent of an animal screaming in agony? Plants use their chemicals to send signals instead of sounds like us.
Anyway I thought we were going to talk more about the morality aspect of this. -
2018-03-23 at 11:50 AM UTC in I asked out the girl who I thought liked me and she told me she had a boyfriend.Enter will steal her from her boyfriend, make her fall in love with him, and then once he got what he wanted out if her he's gonna dump her on the side of the road like last year's christmas tree.
-
2018-03-23 at 11:34 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Jeremus That's not the problem at all. We already have more than enough food to feed literally everyone on earth. In fact, since livestock production is such an insanely land, energy, nutrient and water inefficient process (the amount of shit we put in vs the calories out is incredibly bad), halting meat production and replacing it with food crops and modern farming techniques, not only could we feed everyone but we'd actually be able to feed them like kings, remove the ENORMOUS environmental impact of livestock farming, and a lot of the saved resources could be redirected to benefiting people's lives in other ways.
Now I will grant that it is a societal problem; if you stopped eating meat tomorrow, it wouldn't make an ounce of difference in the global meat industry. But as a society, it's hard to argue that we should stop eating meat, and such societal action would necessarily require you to participate in it.
I guess I'd just rather live in a world with less people and more meat then a world with less meat and more people. -
2018-03-22 at 10:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Jeremus I'm going to take that as "yeah, that's a moral negative".
First, let's talk descriptive claims about livestock production: it is the largest and absolute worst contributor towards climate change. The environmental impact of the meat industry is massive. The simple fact is that it's not really so much the factories or the mines or the power plants that are causing the ice caps to melt. It's meat production.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Long term, as global temperatures rise, it might even lead to the destruction of our own food supplies and the end of humanity as we know it.
Continuing animal agriculture is the single worst thing we can possibly do to humans of the future. It will cause death and displacement, not of a few people but of millions, if not eventually billions. This is not some butterfly effect bullshit that is 10000 degrees of separation from our actions.
To continue to eat meat would thus be a moral wrong for humanity in general, and probably you in specific.
I find this a much better argument than anything I have read in this thread so far. And I think you're right, continuing to go down this path would appear to be disastrous.
But it doesn't really make me feel like I'm doing anything wrong at all. Really it feels like the problem isn't eating meat - the problem seems to be there are too many mouths to feed, and they at currently being fed in an unsustainable way. -
2018-03-22 at 10:06 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-22 at 9:50 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-22 at 3:45 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Yeah, I'm starting to realize that plants have found their way in whether I like it or not. In all seriousness, have you read about bivalves? If you want a grey area that my argument can't easily handle, it's not plants, it's fucking bivalves. I have no idea what to do about them, I just don't eat them.
I'll be back on later, guys, I have unfortunate IRL obligations to see to for now.
You and I don't have to talk about plants. I really don't care, I only brought it up because I was interested in how plant consciousness would affect your decision to opt out of eating other lifeforms.
I would like to hear more about my so-called moral obligation though. -
2018-03-22 at 11:49 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I don't know, maybe I'm salty about salvaging my own arguments now that they've been drowned in a sea of idiots. I thought I had presented my position clearly, is there a specific criticism you'd like to offer, other than that we just should walk away and agree to believe different things?
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. If you can convince me why I should believe you I will.
Originally posted by Zanick You have read the arguments I've offered to you, as far as I can tell, which I appreciate. But, if your replies are any indication, I'm pretty sure that you're here to talk about plants. Please, no more about plants. I realize it's a fascinating subject, and there is an overlap, but you've made a successful thread about them already. This is a thread about whether or not to eat meat.
I already stopped talking about plants. But it appears you have started talking about plants again with other posters. Maybe the plant argument actually has something to it?
Originally posted by Zanick For or against, this debate relies upon friendly disagreement. If you don't take a position and dig your heels in, it's not going to be fun for either of us. IRL I also prefer to 'live-and-let-live' but this is a discussion forum, and we're disagreeing for a reason.
If you dont want to talk a out plants lets focus on the morality aspect. As I've stated before I don't believe not eating meat is "more correct" than eating meat. I believe morality is relative. Unless you can convince me of my so-called moral obligation, I don't believe it actually exists. -
2018-03-21 at 11:48 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Well, this is an internet forum, and I can't make anyone believe something they'd rather not, no matter how right I think I am. As for failing to convince members of my position, you're not wrong. Lanny and CF appear to support animal rights, plus a couple of others, so I wouldn't say you're correct, either. Mostly it sounds as though your mind is made up because I think you prefer to deconstruct ideology, rather than follow it, which is fine.
It's not that I would rather not believe animals shouldn't be eaten - I just don't believe it. If I found your argument convincing then I would believe it. But it doesn't convince me, or at least nothing you have said to me so far has convinced me. I don't think my mind is unchangeable. And is that not why you made this thread? To convince others? To challenge my beliefs with your own? You said yourself, "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." If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince me and I will agree with it. If you are unable to convince me, maybe it's because my point of view is the correct one. Or maybe they are just different points of view, and we just see the world differently. That's all ok. -
2018-03-21 at 10:05 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
I don't believe we have as much control over our beliefs, intentions and behaviors as we like to think we do. If people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, I believe that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. You may believe that "nothing absolves us of our responsibility", but you don't appear to have yet convinced anyone here that such a responsibility actually exists, and unless you can convince me otherwise I am left believing these so-called obligations and responsibilities don't actually matter at all. -
2018-03-21 at 11:52 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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. -
2018-03-20 at 10:52 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I'm aware that plants enjoy a more complicated existence than we generally credit them for, but based on existing literature that I've seen, I'm not convinced that they suffer and I don't think they can be considered moral agents. If this were proven beyond a doubt, however, I would have to reevaluate a lot of what I think I know, and it would also prompt me to make dietary considerations.
Originally posted by Zanick Don't be sorry. You can try to read it all if you want, but more than half of it is drivel from the aforementioned morons.
My position on animal rights is deontological: I believe that we have an obligation to recognize animals as moral agents, making harming them a crime. This means that if it has an interest in living and suffers, we are not entitled to kill it.
I am an abolitionist: I believe we must end the relationship of exploitation with animals in our factories, farms, and testing laboratories as they are unconscionable and our actions constitute a holocaust.
Based on what I have read plants do respond to pain. I don't know if they can be considered "moral agents" but I don't know if animals can be either. But I think it's probably all relative. What a human, tiger, or a potato would consider "right or wrong" is probably all relative and not absolute.
If it were proven to you beyond a doubt that all living things suffer or have a "consciousness" would you feel obligated to stop eating any living things? Would you consider that to be suicide? Would you consider that a right or wrong thing to do?
I agree that the treatment of animals in factory type farms is wrong. I don't like it. But I understand thing better when I use metaphors, so, listen to this:
I work in construction. When new young people come into construction they are usually treated pretty poorly. I don't agree with such behavior and I don't participate in it. I believe it is wrong to treat people in such a way. But it's the way things are. I don't tell anyone they have a moral obligation to be kind to each other. I don't believe anyone does. When I choose to opt out of these behaviors that's a choice based on the way I personally view the world and how I want to react to it.
I believe something similar is happening when a person chooses to become a vegan - they are opting out of a behavior due to their own personal beliefs. I don't believe there is any obligation to not eat meat at all. Some people think it's wrong, so they don't do it. That's all it is.
Thoughts? -
2018-03-20 at 10:20 PM UTC in What religions do you encounter regularly, and what are your thoughts about them?
-
2018-03-20 at 10:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-20 at 10:15 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I think if there's one conclusion to be had from this thread, it's not that you should or shouldn't be eating meat, it's that Infinityqueer and Speedy Nigger are retarded and need to be heavily medicated to keep them from ever picking up a writing instrument again.
I am curious about one thing, recently I made a thread full of links to research into how plants may be intelligent and may even have a form of consciousness. What do you think about that? Would you ever consider yourself to be morally obligated to stop eating plants? -
2018-03-20 at 10:09 PM UTC in What religions do you encounter regularly, and what are your thoughts about them?This guy at work is always praying before he eats. I think it's stupid.
-
2018-03-20 at 10:06 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatSo wait, did this thread reach a conclusion? Do I have a moral obligation to stop eating delicious sweet meat? Is it wrong?
-
2018-03-20 at 6:28 PM UTC in Lmaoooo does Obbe realize how much he sucks.
-
2018-03-20 at 3:45 PM UTC in Lmaoooo does Obbe realize how much he sucks.
-
2018-03-20 at 3:32 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
