Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2012, 07:46 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
[Image: praise-seitan2-720949.gif]

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 09:04 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 09:08 PM by NoahsFarce.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
You're a flat out joke vacuous. I gave you a negative rating not because I find you ridiculous, but because I find you highly hypocritical. You come in here, call an entire group of people ignorant with a single post, totally ignore all of their points, all the while insulting people like me by remarking that I'm unintelligent and proclaiming that we're not understanding YOUR POINTS.

Then you immediately negative me back lol. You're as disingenuous as they get. Not that you care or anything, but you have lost all credibility with me now.

I don't care about genuine negatives. I do find the "you pinched me so I'm pinching back" ones to be funny though.

And to answer your question... When people ask questions like "is veganism the moral baseline" we're going to answer with science because as myself and many others have repeatedly pointed out... IT'S NATURAL to eat meat. How can it possibly be the moral baseline?

And seriously? Natural urge to consume meat is subjective? Is that really the stance you're taking? No, I mean really?
(27-04-2012 12:47 PM)kim Wrote:  I'm not really paying attention to anything that's being bashed back and forth here, but I SOooo want a bumper sticker that says:

Vegans are Meat Nuns.

That is just fucking awesome.
Admittedly, not as awesome as your infamous "Ignostic Apatheist". Blush

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NoahsFarce's post
28-04-2012, 03:47 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I have explained why someone eats meat, and someone doesn't, but some people just refuse to hear me. PERCEPTION!! Your view of this world is NOT the same as my view. I see a deer - I see a great meal, a month, or 2 months of meals. Someone else sees a beautiful nice animal and wants to protect it from assholes like me.

Is this simple enough for you?

We see things differently. That is why you care about animals so much more. I DON'T! If I did, I would be a vegetarian. But I am NOT! Can I explain this more simple? NO!

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 05:45 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 03:47 AM)Filox Wrote:  I have explained why someone eats meat, and someone doesn't, but some people just refuse to hear me. PERCEPTION!! Your view of this world is NOT the same as my view. I see a deer - I see a great meal, a month, or 2 months of meals. Someone else sees a beautiful nice animal and wants to protect it from assholes like me.

Is this simple enough for you?

We see things differently. That is why you care about animals so much more. I DON'T! If I did, I would be a vegetarian. But I am NOT! Can I explain this more simple? NO!
It's not enough. VacuousBrain is just like a theist looking for an argument that disproves god from an atheist.


So not only is he a meat nun, he's a pandatheist.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 06:01 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Hey, Filox.

I respect a hunter like yourself. Someone who hunts a deer and then actually uses it. There's respect and communion in that. The deer gives its life for your family and there's respect for its spirit and sacrifice. I dig it.

Sport hunters though, they're just scum. And not my kind of scum either, like they didn't ask me for 50 000 for the Wookie and then threaten me with a thermal detonator. Just regular pond scum.

Similarly, I respect certain farmers. The farmers who have a relationship with their animals and the land, who try to create balance and not monocrop (ESPECIALLY permaculturalists) I can respect because that respect and communion is there.

Factory farms are a blight on humanity. Know how they kill male chicks? They throw them into an auger. That's just one atrocity of, well, pretty much everything they do is an atrocity and that's not hyperbole. From how they're born, to how they're raised, to how they're killed, to how their waste is handled, it's pretty much all terrible.

For anyone who's looking for simple vegan meal ideas and who also want to worship the Dark Lord, might I suggest Vegan Black Metal Chef.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 07:29 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 09:04 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  You're a flat out joke vacuous. I gave you a negative rating not because I find you ridiculous, but because I find you highly hypocritical. You come in here, call an entire group of people ignorant with a single post, totally ignore all of their points, all the while insulting people like me by remarking that I'm unintelligent and proclaiming that we're not understanding YOUR POINTS.

Then you immediately negative me back lol. You're as disingenuous as they get. Not that you care or anything, but you have lost all credibility with me now.

I don't care about genuine negatives. I do find the "you pinched me so I'm pinching back" ones to be funny though.

And to answer your question... When people ask questions like "is veganism the moral baseline" we're going to answer with science because as myself and many others have repeatedly pointed out... IT'S NATURAL to eat meat. How can it possibly be the moral baseline?

And seriously? Natural urge to consume meat is subjective? Is that really the stance you're taking? No, I mean really?
I guess that's what we get for being a child and giving a negative rep to someone because we don't agree with them. You will learn I guess. As far as the rest of your appealing to nature goes, it will go unacknowledged. I have pointed out why it is fallacious over the past 5-6 pages; I am done with that now. You, and plenty of others, are tiring me out with this fallacious argument. You use this argument in a biased manner when--and only when--it supports your best interests.

Come to me with better arguments, and I will acknowledge you as someone with a rational mind.


(28-04-2012 03:47 AM)Filox Wrote:  I have explained why someone eats meat, and someone doesn't, but some people just refuse to hear me. PERCEPTION!! Your view of this world is NOT the same as my view. I see a deer - I see a great meal, a month, or 2 months of meals. Someone else sees a beautiful nice animal and wants to protect it from assholes like me.
Perception is irrelevant to the idea of what IS right and wrong. Claiming you refuse to look at something the same way I do instead of constructing an actual argument is a cop-out.

A sexist might not see women as equals in the way I do.
This doesn't stop women from being equal. Although nature made them weaker and more frail on average to men. This doesn't make it okay to few them as this way despite perception or nature.

A racist might not see someone from another ethnic group the way I do.
This doesn't make hating them okay. Nor does this warrant the racist to be a racist solely based on her perception. His perception might be with science. Evidently I don't think I have to make it apparent, that it would be impossible for every ethnic group to have evolved at the same pace and in the same way. Caucasians, for example, could be evolving slower mentally than an Asian. It doesn't make it right to view it this way despite the evident fact it would be impossible to have the same rate of evolution. This is why philosophy and science should be separated at times.

A pedophile might see nothing wrong with having sex with children. After all, natures biological clock says that they are "good to go."
This doesn't make sleeping with children okay, based on perception or nature. In invoking science at this point, the pedophile will be making a factual statement. However, this is where better judgment steps in, and another justification must be found.


Now I am not comparing anyone to these types of people. I am merely demonstrating that because nature intended it that way does not make it okay. Perception is also, in these examples, not a free pass; it also does not waver the fact that they do wrong ethically solely because they perceive it in a different way.

Meat eaters view other animals as mere means to an end. Nature actually has created them--in most cases--less intelligent than us. This, however, does not make it okay to eat them. They still feel suffering and pain, and they have a life that was given to them just as equally as ours was to us. Perception does not waver this. It is a fact.

There was my go at debunking nature--again. This time I had perception in mind.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 08:44 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Yes, but since you like to use philosophy, let me continue... Who are you to say that your perception of things is better than mine is? Why do you think you have the right to tell me about the morality? Why do you think your morality is greater than mine is? Who are you to tell anyone what to eat, kill and love?

Do you see where I'm going with this? You say there is right and wrong and that it is all clear. But who has put the boundaries in the middle? You? isn't there a gray area?

Does this high moral stance you have mean that you would rather die than eat another human being? Like in the "Alive" movie... Well then, die all you like, I wouldn't, I would be the first one to make a nice stew out of all those frozen humans, just like any other FOOD I would find...

Smile

BTW, Perception is the only thing that tells us what is right or wrong, if you take away that, you have lost your ability to think like a human and you become an animal. You view of the world, your perception, your biasness, that is what makes you, that is what you are, that is how you feel, think and live. That is YOU. Everything else is just your body, physical, biological body, without real consciousness.

Or I am wrong, but it is just the way I see things around me?

Smile

Peace brother.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I don't eat vegetables, but I do eat the things that do.
Sun -> Grass -> Cow -> Streak Yes
So in a way I'm eating naturally processed solar energy.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thomas's post
28-04-2012, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 10:30 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 08:44 AM)Filox Wrote:  Yes, but since you like to use philosophy, let me continue... Who are you to say that your perception of things is better than mine is? Why do you think you have the right to tell me about the morality? Why do you think your morality is greater than mine is? Who are you to tell anyone what to eat, kill and love?
My stance on declaring you as wrong goes as far as the strengths of your arguments. I have been, and just did again, debunking the logic behind perception and appeals to nature. If you cannot defend your arguments properly, then they should be dismissed. Instead everyone here, and you have done it yourself, have held your arguments with an apparent deep conviction--despite my previous debunking.

I don't perceive things differently. I argue that well being of anything is a better justification for my actions than an appeal to nature. And the appeals to nature are used in a biased manner. I contest that this is no more than a smoke screen for a trivial self interest justification for eating meat.

In my most recent argument, I showed you that perceiving things differently, or appealing to nature was invalid. I will assume that this has struct you as a little obvious now considering you haven't defended the point.

This isn't about me telling anyone what they can or cannot do. I merely asked what is their justification for retracting an animals well being. It is up to the doer to defend his actions. It is not up to the bystander to defend not doing them. Just as it is up to the claim maker to defend their claim because they wear the burden of proof--in this case justification. If the doer's justification is resting on self interest alone, then I argue that well being trumps this. In which at this point, I think that the doer will have a difficult time proving that selfishness is more of a virtuous or intrinsic value.

As far as the appeal to nature goes--if this isn't a matter of self interest--then tell me, who is to say that the pedophile is wrong? What if the child is willing? We must not forget, he is appealing to nature. The child is biologically "ready". I would have a hard time understanding that you wouldn't place yourself in a higher position of ethics when it came to the pedophile. That you would argue that your argument wouldn't be placed in favor of the child's well being. That you wouldn't throw the appeals to nature out of the window as fast as I do with you and your identical appeals to nature.

Quote:Do you see where I'm going with this? You say there is right and wrong and that it is all clear. But who has put the boundaries in the middle? You? isn't there a gray area?
There obviously can and will be gray areas. The issue is, there is not a gray area when it comes to cows, over insects; pigs, over bacteria; chickens, over plants. The well being at stake is more than clear. We know, with as much as we can know, that vertebrates feel pain, arguable just as much as we do. And if it is a little less, I doubt it is enough to be considered okay.

I might add, why does there have to be a line? Why can there not just be a constant continuum? If we place Cow, horse, dogs, pigs, chickens, fish, frogs, rats, etc... all along the continuum--some placing at higher standards--why can't the all be spared? If the line was drawn at rats, would you go out of your way to mass murder flies to get your jollies? There isn't a line. There will only be scenarios in which it would be permissible to kill something. Not a line drawn at where this is okay to kill, and this isn't. If every single animal leaves you alone, then great! But let's say a mosquito is trying to steal your blood. Well obviously there is justification for killing the mosquito: Self defense. It all lies within justification. Just because dogs might feel more pain that rats, does not mean that we draw the line there and all rats are fair game. Only within reason should we define our actions--no lines.
Quote:Does this high moral stance you have mean that you would rather die than eat another human being? Like in the "Alive" movie... Well then, die all you like, I wouldn't, I would be the first one to make a nice stew out of all those frozen humans, just like any other FOOD I would find...

Smile
I see nothing wrong with eating something that has died and wasn't a result of me, and I--and others--need to do so to survive. I am perfectly fine with the idea that people can eat meat when the cow dies of old age. The direct causing of pain and taking of it's life is my problem. In fact, if I could be, I would be angry if no one ate me to survive if it called for it. Also, strange that you have proposed this. Nothing I have said has lead anyone to think that I would not eat meat. I have stressed again and again that my main cause is well being.

Better yet, if it was do or die, killing the cow was the only way to live. Then I find this permissible. Because you are actually now back in the realm of nature. It is eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed. Justification in this realm can appeal to nature. However, we are no longer in that realm, although we could find ourselves in it one day.
Quote:BTW, Perception is the only thing that tells us what is right or wrong, if you take away that, you have lost your ability to think like a human and you become an animal. You view of the world, your perception, your biasness, that is what makes you, that is what you are, that is how you feel, think and live. That is YOU. Everything else is just your body, physical, biological body, without real consciousness.
I never said that we should give up our ability to perceive. I merely stated that something is not right, because you perceive it that way. My perception does not make a cow feel pain. Your perception does not remove the pain of the blade across it's neck. The pain is there whether we perceive it or not. A fallen tree makes a sound in the woods, whether someone heard it or not.

I like how you mentioned that I would become an animal. This is coming from the person using a justification that rules an animals life. "Because it is natural."
Quote:Or I am wrong, but it is just the way I see things around me?

Smile

Peace brother.
I will admit. I could be dead wrong on this. The issue is, I have presented again and again arguments against nature. Also, against perception. You have not defended the natural claim. You have attempted to defend the perception claim, but I think you misunderstood my point. You should understand it now that I have elaborated further. You also dodged my critiques on the subject of perception and nature with the racist, pedophile and sexist. Now if you don't mind tell me what is wrong with the thinking of the three scenarios. Are they in the right by appealing to nature? Why or why not? Are their acts right because they perceive them that way? Why or why not. And reference my perception clarification in this post about perception not defining what is right/wrong.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 10:24 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Quote:
(28-04-2012 07:06 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  Meat eaters view other animals as mere means to an end. Nature actually has created them--in most cases--less intelligent than us. This, however, does not make it okay to eat them. They still feel suffering and pain, and they have a life that was given to them just as equally as ours was to us. Perception does not waver this. It is a fact.

There was my go at debunking nature--again. This time I had perception in mind.
Quote: This, however, does not make it okay to eat them.
And it does not make it not okay to eat them. You make a statement without justification, you have not debunked nature, merely put your interpretation and perception on it.
Quote: They still feel suffering and pain, and they have a life that was given to them just as equally as ours was to us.
Again, you have set the standard (without justification) that a steer's life is equal to a human's life. That is your opinion.
Quote: Perception does not waver this. It is a fact.
Saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: