Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
King_Hands
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 629
Location: Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:16 am 
 

I don't think I've eaten sheep more than once. If cows had thumbs and bigger brains, they would be the ones eating me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9vxHN8_jSE

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:23 am 
 

megalowho wrote:
...Conclusion: There is no morally relevant difference between scenarios A and B. Therefore, in scenario B, you are immoral; you should sacrifice your personal luxuries in order to save lives.

The proper response to this argument, in my opinion...


In mine, it's, rather, to note that there is no duty to save a child's life; that 'heroism' or 'altruism' is the appropriate way to refer to actions in the child's defense, not as 'merely doing what he had a duty to do, no more worthy of praise than someone who gives way at a give way sign'. Singer is free to claim it's immoral to prefer your interests to that of the child, but the defense needs to be offered. this scenario, by itself, is only useful in exposing hypocrisy in people who claim to accept his premises (and, if I'm not mistaken, that is precisely what he employs it for).

megalowho wrote:
The proper response to this argument, in my opinion, is to acknowledge that it makes an excellent point, and resolve to sacrifice a "reasonable" portion (whatever that means) of your personal luxuries in order to ameliorate others' suffering and give them a better chance at a decent life.

the point is makes is a good one -- that we have a difference without a distinction. however, the premise on which we would have to make any changes to our behavior is not established in that part of his case. whether others must sacrifice their health in respect for our property rights, or we must sacrifice our property* in respect for the health of others needs to be argued.

*or, similarly, others be deemed moral in stealing it from us in serving their survival.

megalowho wrote:
But clearly, unless you're a saint, you're not going to forego all luxuries - although consistency would demand it. Rather, you'll just recognize the need to reshape your lifestyle out of respect to a moral ideal, and you'll do the best you can, but you won't allow your "shortcomings" to torment your conscience. Nobody's really going to fault you for this.


this merely means it's acceptable in our society to not be moral. If we accepted his premises about the immorality of doing otherwise, and yet did otherwise, it would merely mean we are not moral...that our conscience does not reflect our intellectually derived ethic, and that we live in a society so depraved that no one can call us on our lack of morality.
the only good reason for not faulting people for this is not believing it is true. Just as we don't respect that a pedophile 'did his best to have as few victims as still allowed him to enjoy an indulgent lifestyle', we don't say 'be easy on him, you're no saint, either!', if we thought the matter at hand was one of duty not charity, we would have to fault people, and ourselves, morally, as we do with the morality "we" actually believe in.

megalowho wrote:
Kant's Categorical Imperative leads to a powerful argument against lying. (I won't go into the details; just assume it's sound.) But Kant himself, apparently - or anyone who deems lying an absolute wrong - would have you tell the truth to the Nazis when they ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home. Clearly, it would be bad for you to turn the Jews over.

here you're just confusing 'bad' with 'immoral'. what is clear is that your preferred ethic where harm being done to Jews is immoral is not the same as the ethic Kant offers an argument for.

megalowho wrote:
...utilitarianism demands you kill one of your children in order to prevent the murder of both. This is very bad. Now again, what's the significance of this? Consistent utilitarianism is no longer an option...

what do you think is its significance? we all know that how comfortable you feel with a decision isn't an absolute guide to ethical truth.

megalowho wrote:
I hope this casts some doubt on the suggestion that, since nobody's going to take it upon themselves to interfere with the eating habits of sharks in the wild, we need not worry about doing anything to ameliorate the needless suffering of animals, so doing our best to adopt an animal-friendly diet must be out of the picture.


you're free to worry about whatever you like. My only interest is when people start making claims of rights and duties.
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:32 am 
 

megalowho wrote:
Vegetarian since 2008, planning to go vegan upon graduation and employment (next year, hopefully).

It's for moral reasons, which have been alluded to already in this thread, but I won't press them unless asked. (But I'll also add that there are great environmental reasons for eliminating animal products from your diet.)


what's your stance on the morality of breeding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:44 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
The quote is supposed to illustrate that in our natural physiological state (ie. only using our hands and teeth, no cooking, no tools) we are not really equipped or motivated to eat animals.


even monkeys and birds have been shown to be able to use tools. I'm not sure how we're supposed to strip mankind of its ability to use tools and somehow thereby reach some deeper understanding of what it is to be human. ...sure, we would freeze in Alaska if we couldn't make clothing, but what moral truth does this tell us about the eskimos? if we are not "naturally" (and 'naturally' here denying that our brains--which conceive of how to use tools just as a wolf's brain conceives of how to hunt with a pack strategy--are a part of nature) supposed to survive there, is there some moral imperative to leave those habitats unpopulated by humans? what is it you think is the consequence of this silly observation?

hell, to look from the other direction: some vegans feed their shelter dogs vegan-friendly pet food. ...given that the dog wasn't designed by evolution to put together a vegetarian recipe, but to rip apart rats and rabbits instead, does this mean the vegan has a duty to increase animal suffering rather than to offer nutritious healthy vegetarian food to their dog?
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:06 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
But did you notice how all the hens on the farm were female? (obvious tautology) What happened to the males? Most egg farms source their hens from a breeder, who definitely would have macerated or gased the male chicks after hatching, as it's not profitable to raise and feed non-egg layers.

what's your point, here? are you opposed to abortion rights?...if you were killed when you were 3-weeks old, do you think you'd have suffered? do you think those chicks have more self-awareness than you did?

Forbinator wrote:
Even though grass-fed beef sounds nice, it takes about 10kg of grass to grow 1kg of beef, and in the meantime you have methane emissions that rival that produced by the world's transport http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... ne-cow.htm. The land used to grow the 10kg of grass could instead have been used to grow 10kg of vegetable matter to feed directly to humans, instead of the 1kg of steak. No wonder there's a food shortage. http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/defaul ... atives.pdf

what's your stance on breeding? (one might also factor in that most offspring will grow up to consume meat/perpetuate this cycle we can stipulate is bad for the environment).
bring less suffering into the world, and we don't need to deprive those who are alive of however much room they need. ...why should I sacrifice my fondness for something that requires 10kg of grass, when you/others won't sacrifice their fondness for offspring and pets and power-guzzling houses that require more than mere grass?

Forbinator wrote:
Minimising suffering...but why is it ok to inflict suffering at all? The lions have no choice; they have to rip zebras apart to survive themselves.

but we have a choice of whether or not they survive, just as we have a choice of whether or not child predators continue to roam free and cause suffering whenever they please to.

why is it ok to let them inflict suffering at all? what apologetic would you offer to their victims if zebras could understand English?

Forbinator wrote:
Humans are intelligent enough to eat pretty much anything we want. Hell, the Japanese even figured out how to synthesise a burger from human faeces, and it actually tasted ok.

according to the Japanese? that's not saying much. #casualracism

Forbinator wrote:
cooking actually deactivates many nutrients in food. The main purpose of cooking meat is to kill all the Salmonella and disgusting stuff on meat that we have not evolved to handle.

perhaps for you. but cooking has several functions, and making meat more digestible is one of them. (if you were stuck in the snow with nothing to eat but a dead human, you might best opt to eat their brain, because it's about the largest quantity of edible meat you could get without the ability to cook). a lot more goes to waste if you don't cook the body than if you do. If cooked meat wasn't nutritious, we'd have stopped doing it by now, through sheer hunger!
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:08 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Yep, I'm sure there are exceptions where some people are forced to eat animal products. In general this is not the case for humans. Are these Tibetans eating fish mainly? If they're eating land animals, then my question is what are the land animals eating? The paddocks used to feed the land animals could feed humans directly, at much higher efficiency.


paddocks?
livestock are able to graze on land that isn't suitable for horticulture. you can't just presume they're squandering prime horticultural land.
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
toxikwalts
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:55 am
Posts: 34
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:09 am 
 

See, this is why people are annoyed by vegans.

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:12 am 
 

swayze wrote:
I'm not going to try to prove that meat is healthy, because I don't want to invest time into this. Over the years, I've spent a lot of hours researching nutrition and I've gathered lot of experiential knowledge through work. I've come to the conclusions that I have, after giving a vegetarian diet a fair shot by the way, and I hold strong convictions that aren't likely to change. I believe that quality meat is good for a majority of people


it's pretty hard to find critiques of the Harvard cancer study, though. d'you know any good ones?
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:33 am 
 

VoidApostle wrote:
This may come off as incredibly stupid, but it's just a thought...

Are live stock really suffering? I mean, animals that are in captivity have it alot better than those in the wild. An endless supply of food, and they never have to worry about predators or disease. And how can something without a conscious even suffer? Animals function completely on instinct. If a cow is being abused, it's not thinking about how ghastly this slaughterhouse is and hoping that one day someone will liberate her and all her cow brethren. If it reacts at all, it's simply because of a pre-programed response to pain for the sake of survival. It doesn't know that it's in pain, it doesn't even know that it's alive.

Again, sorry if I sound like a massive dumbass. And for the record, I don't advocate animal abuse.

I don't think anyone has implied that livestock suffer all day every day. But on the first page of this thread when I listed points number 1-5, I mentioned how these animals do suffer, and how it is unnecessary. Also, comparison with the wild is not valid, since all suffering in the wild occurs regardless of our actions, and the suffering we impose on farmed animals is additional to this. The pain response that you and I feel is also a pre-programmed response for the sake of survival. Unless adequately proven, it is a fallacy to assume that cow pain receptors as well as the relevant pain centres of the brain serve a significantly different purpose from those of humans.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Minimising harm is still harm, and it's a completely unnecessary form of harm. If you don't understand, I suggest impaling your face with a hook and letting us know the result.


I'd suggest you read Nagel's famous essay What Is it Like to Be a Bat? before you pursue this line of argument in the future.

(I would be bored as fuck and want to kill myself if I was forced to stand in a field full of cow shit doing nothing but eating grass all day long in the hot sun ... but I shouldn't skip over relevant biological differences and infer that cows, unable to commit suicide, would feel how I would feel and would be grateful for me to kill them.)

The key point here is that even if we don't know exactly what it is like to be a bat, or a cow, we can make inferences based on differences and similarities between the species. My argument about facial impalement of fish applying to humans is valid, because I have already posted a link about how fish feel pain and have nociceptors just like we do. However, we can't make the same assumption about standing in a paddock all day, because we don't have the physiological requirement to graze on grass for 13 hours per day. It might be reasonable to assume that cows have evolved past the potential "boredom" issues of their lifestyle, because being bored eating grass would not have been a beneficial trait for a cow.

We should definitely take into account relevant biological differences between species, if known. For mammals who breastfeed their young, essentially the same hormones and instincts involved in a suckling neonate apply to cows as to humans, so it is reasonable to assume that taking a newborn calf from her mother is as traumatic as if I invaded a hospital and stole infants. This is the logical interpretation, until we discover relevant differences in how a calf suckles from her mother. After weaning there are differences in the roles that parents of different species play in the life of the young, which explain why taking a ten-year-old human child from its mother would be reprehensible, but a ten-year-old cow? This is obviously different because of differences in species.

Erotetic wrote:
It really puzzles me how they talk about equality (they complain about what's called 'speciesism', which is like racism, our putting human mere-interests ahead of the rights of other species), but then permit every form of animal-caused suffering to exist and be deemed permissible except those caused by one species...ours. seems remarkably speciesist, to me--as though we don't even get to be regarded as equally a part of nature as the other animals (fair enough for them to say 'we should know better', and that's why equality is a mistaken virtue, but they need to drop the 'speciesism' rhetoric in that case). Most puzzling of all is the idea that our behaviors in question are immoral because they cause suffering that could be prevented, but yet suffering is worth ignoring so long as it wasn't caused by a man ... as though a deer hates a bullet in the head from a farmer but loves when screw-fly larvae bore through their eyeball. Given that a fish doesn't say 'oh, good, I'm only being ripped apart by a shark, not a man', it's weird that the vegan finds consolation in this and manages to be apathetic about the majority of the suffering that goes on in the animal world. ... they say 'it's necessary', as though this advances the argument. Suppose it was proven that a pedophile would shrivel up and die if they abstained from molesting children. ...would we permit molestation by pedophiles but not by anyone else, or would we say 'good riddance'? ... the vegan only has empathy for the suffering of some victims, and since it makes little difference to the victims, what rationale have we to be vegan? (compassion?...clearly the vegan's 'compassionate' attitude is grossly exaggerated).

Perhaps "unpreventable" or "not reasonable to prevent" would be a better word to use than "necessary". If we tried to save zebras from being killed by lions it would necessarily involve a disruption of natural ecosystems, increased suffering to the lions, or perhaps increased zebra suffering due to higher population and competition for resources. I'm not apathetic about a fish being ripped apart by a shark, but I acknowledge that it is unreasonable for me to do anything about it. I can only control my own behaviour.

I think you're misinterpreting speciesism as well. In cases where there are differences between species that make it reasonable for them to behave differently, it is not speciesist to treat them differently (for example, taking a ten-year-old cow from its mum as I explained earlier). If we use racism as an analogy, it is not racist for me to say "black people have less of a requirement for sunscreen", but it is racist for me to say "black people don't require schooling". The racist statement is a fallacy because it assumes differences between races that don't exist, or have not been proven to exist.

metaldiscussor666 wrote:
1. First off, we're omnivores. Killing animals is natural for us.
...
2. There is absolutely no harm in milking a cow. Not to the cow itself, not to anyone else.
...
3.Tell me, in a world where we drop bombs on people. In a world where all sorts of fucked up shit happens, why the hell should I care about some stupid animal whose death is completely inconsequential to anything- no, whose death is beneficial to my well being? I don't really want to sound like a jackass, however, i'm just going to say this. This is hippy bull crap. If we're such pacifists, than we should just kill ourselves before we kill a single solitary being. That's what I call a logical fallacy.
...
4.If osama bin laden offered me a delicious steak, would I accept it? Consider this hypothetical situation. Should it matter that this person is evil? Do I accept this steak from this evil man? To further embellish this hypothesis, let's say I didn't even know osama bin laden was the one who made me a steak. Does it make a difference? No.

1. Physiologically we are herbivores. Our intestine lengths relative to our bodies, our grinding molars, our tiny canines, lack of claws, inability to run fast enough to catch a rabbit, stomach pH, inability to cope with bacteria from raw meat, inability to metabolise animal cholesterol (we are the only "meat eating" species that deposits the cholesterol in our arteries). All of these attributes are herbivorous.

2. I have already posted links about the welfare issues relating to dairy cows. The mere act of milking them may not be harmful, although the milking machines do cause debilitating mastitis problems throughout the herd. The farming practices certainly are harmful though, and I have explained these already.

3. Your fallacy is "suffering already happens, so it's ok for me to needlessly inflict more". You also talk as if you don't believe it's possible to care about multiple causes. If I see an old lady having her handbag stolen, I don't say "sorry, I'm too busy not eating this steak, I can't help you."

4. You've misunderstood. It doesn't really matter if the person offering you a steak is evil, but it is a fallacy to assume that the animal you are eating was killed humanely. I have explained this already, but perhaps my wording was a bit strange in the originally posted myth.
metaldiscussor666 wrote:
Quote:
I participated in legalised, institutionalised animal abuse until December 2011, when I realised that there was absolutely no justification for it. I think that those of you who continue to consume animal products either haven't been pressed to justify yourselves, or subscribe to unscientific myths such as those above.

Congratulations. Also, no. How on earth did you come to this conclusion?

Forbinator wrote:
The alternative to my theory of childhood indoctrination with meat/dairy/egg consumption, is that each child was presented with the facts about where their food came from and how it was produced, and made logical and informed decisions before eating anything. This is not plausible, since parents feed their children before they can even talk. Unless there is a third alternative I have not considered? I'm willing to be proven wrong of course.

These myths have been taught to us from a very young age, and most of us have grown up without challenging them. Many people who have replied to this thread have indicated that they do in fact believe the myths that I stated at the beginning, which has validated the point I made. I have disproven the myths throughout this thread.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
...animals are killed for dairy and eggs right? Young males especially are superfluous to the industries and are discarded, generally via inhumane conditions and treatment. If I went into a hospital and stole a bunch of babies, I expect that I would end up in prison and the victims would be highly traumatised.

and if you killed someone else's offspring and mated with her, we would put you in prison. However, it doesn't follow that we should lock up gorrilas for doing this.

Gorillas have different sexual behaviour from humans. We also can't reasonably prevent them from killing their own offspring. You have exposed a grey area though; if a severely mentally retarded person commits a murder or rape, there is an argument about whether they really knew what they were doing. This generally does not apply to our daily lives though.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Your comparison to Christianity is the exact opposite of the truth as well. Omnivores only eat animal products because of childhood indoctrination (much like religion), and have the production process hidden from them.

similarly, you could fantasize that I'm only an atheist because I 'haven't heard the good word yet'. however, you're both wrong, and wrong to assume, that the only reason people don't agree with you is because they're ignorant.

But in this case, I have actually posted scientific evidence to debunk the dairy = strong bones myth.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
The analogy that best fits veganism is ex-Christians who have abandoned their faith and overcome brainwash after being presented with the facts and interpreting them logically.

or Catholics who have become Methodists, bewildered at how the Baptists/Catholics/atheists/etc. can't see that this is so clearly the one true religion. ...they're merely fools being fooled once again, sucked in by what they have an emotional weakness for.

Again, if strong scientific evidence had been provided indicating that they indeed should become Methodists, your analogy might hold.

Erotetic wrote:
As I've said, you can find some very intellectual vegans, like Peter Singer, but they're pretty ruthless compared to the common high-school girl who feels sad after watching a video and becomes a vegan (again, analogous to someone switching to a religion because of some powerful sentiment and leaps in logic beyond the evidence). It's rare that I meet a vegan who actually studies moral philosophy and has a consistent ethic.

If the videos of cruel treatment of farmed animals actually do represent standard practice, then making changes as a result is not merely a sentimental decision. If combined with research into what actually happens in the industries, it is a logical decision. Also "consistent ethic" is an impossible goal for anyone. megalowho has posted some ethical arguments that indicate that often there is no "correct" ethical choice. All we can do is our best. It would seem to me that choosing to overtly harm animals for our own pleasures wouldn't be an example of our best.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Referring to me as arrogant necessarily implies that I'm wrong (as it's impossible to be correct and arrogant), so I think you really need to explain where I am wrong.

on the contrary: I'm arrogant, myself (perhaps you ought to google the word before presuming deductive conclusions from it). But I've put in a lot more time studying those who disagree with me than you have, so I'm not terribly worried about it. We all know Richard Dawkins is arrogant -- he should be, he's right, and he wrote one of the most important books of our era. arrogance is only a bad thing when it leads someone to think they already know enough, when in fact it's coupled with ignorance that misleads them and is counterproductive to persuasive argument.

I don't think I know enough, but I'm still waiting to be proven wrong in my assertions. I'm the only one here who has backed up what I have said with scientific links.
Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Also, someone mentioned preaching, which I would define as saying "you should [insert action]". Stating facts, followed by logical inferences based on those facts, is not preaching. By complaining about preaching, rather than addressing the actual argument, you effectively "shoot the messenger".


meh. I think you're "preaching", but what's wrong with preaching? you're not bringing this up in someone else's thread, anyway. The only reason to not "preach" about something important (like moral atrocities) is for lack of argument backing one's opinion there to (which is what keeps so many Christians quiet). And, as far as I'm concerned, failing to voice and defend one's opinions only ensures that whoever is wrong will stay wrong longer. If someone doesn't like to argue some subject...go find another thread. Like CrushedRevelation said, if a vegan is going to think I'm evil, or a Christian is going to think I'm a sinner...so what? why would that bother me? either they have a good argument or they don't; none of their arrogance or preaching or holier-than-thou attitude makes me feel any worse, so there's really no need to ask them to STFU.

This certainly makes sense, although we probably have different ideas of what preaching is.

megalowho wrote:
I hope this casts some doubt on the suggestion that, since nobody's going to take it upon themselves to interfere with the eating habits of sharks in the wild, we need not worry about doing anything to ameliorate the needless suffering of animals, so doing our best to adopt an animal-friendly diet must be out of the picture.

You definitely showed that there is no such thing as consistent or perfect ethics. We certainly are not obligated to go around saving animals, but you have not provided an argument for actively harming them, which is what farming does.

Erotetic wrote:
even monkeys and birds have been shown to be able to use tools. I'm not sure how we're supposed to strip mankind of its ability to use tools and somehow thereby reach some deeper understanding of what it is to be human. ...sure, we would freeze in Alaska if we couldn't make clothing, but what moral truth does this tell us about the eskimos? if we are not "naturally" (and 'naturally' here denying that our brains--which conceive of how to use tools just as a wolf's brain conceives of how to hunt with a pack strategy--are a part of nature) supposed to survive there, is there some moral imperative to leave those habitats unpopulated by humans? what is it you think is the consequence of this silly observation?

hell, to look from the other direction: some vegans feed their shelter dogs vegan-friendly pet food. ...given that the dog wasn't designed by evolution to put together a vegetarian recipe, but to rip apart rats and rabbits instead, does this mean the vegan has a duty to increase animal suffering rather than to offer nutritious healthy vegetarian food to their dog?

All I've said is we didn't evolve to use tools. Other primates did. This doesn't mean that we should stop using tools or anything like that. I don't think I ever said Alaska should be unpopulated by humans. In fact I would acknowledge that there may be an imperative for Alaskans to eat fish if plant matter doesn't grow well there.

Dogs have evolved as scavengers who can adapt to just about any type of diet. Cats however, now this would be an abuse to try to feed them vegetables, given their biological imperatives.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
But did you notice how all the hens on the farm were female? (obvious tautology) What happened to the males? Most egg farms source their hens from a breeder, who definitely would have macerated or gased the male chicks after hatching, as it's not profitable to raise and feed non-egg layers.

what's your point, here? are you opposed to abortion rights?...if you were killed when you were 3-weeks old, do you think you'd have suffered? do you think those chicks have more self-awareness than you did?

The issue is that the chicks go into the grinder feet first, which is a painful death. There are thousands that need to be killed at a time, so they enter via a conveyor belt. CO2 gassing also causes suffering. It is not a peaceful death.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Even though grass-fed beef sounds nice, it takes about 10kg of grass to grow 1kg of beef, and in the meantime you have methane emissions that rival that produced by the world's transport http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... ne-cow.htm. The land used to grow the 10kg of grass could instead have been used to grow 10kg of vegetable matter to feed directly to humans, instead of the 1kg of steak. No wonder there's a food shortage. http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/defaul ... atives.pdf

what's your stance on breeding? (one might also factor in that most offspring will grow up to consume meat/perpetuate this cycle we can stipulate is bad for the environment).

...why should I sacrifice my fondness for something that requires 10kg of grass, when you/others won't sacrifice their fondness for offspring and pets and power-guzzling houses that require more than mere grass?

Breeding animals for human use almost inevitably leads to their interests being placed secondary to profit. I would advocate adopting pets from shelters rather than supporting breeders. This is another issue though.

As I said, the land used to grow the grass could have been used to feed ten people, rather than just feeding yourself. With starving people in the world, I cannot justify that level of greed. Whether I am causing people to starve simply by living in my house, I am uncertain of.

Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Minimising suffering...but why is it ok to inflict suffering at all? The lions have no choice; they have to rip zebras apart to survive themselves.

but we have a choice of whether or not they survive, just as we have a choice of whether or not child predators continue to roam free and cause suffering whenever they please to.

why is it ok to let them inflict suffering at all? what apologetic would you offer to their victims if zebras could understand English?

It can be argued that the suffering caused by lions is a necessary part of the ecosystem. Perhaps removal of this suffering would lead to other suffering due to outcompeting for resources and starvation. Child predators however are not a necessary part of the ecosystem.

I would offer the same condolences to the zebras as I would to a human who is ravaged by a horrible incurable disease.

Etoteric wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
cooking actually deactivates many nutrients in food. The main purpose of cooking meat is to kill all the Salmonella and disgusting stuff on meat that we have not evolved to handle.

perhaps for you. but cooking has several functions, and making meat more digestible is one of them. (if you were stuck in the snow with nothing to eat but a dead human, you might best opt to eat their brain, because it's about the largest quantity of edible meat you could get without the ability to cook). a lot more goes to waste if you don't cook the body than if you do. If cooked meat wasn't nutritious, we'd have stopped doing it by now, through sheer hunger!

Fair enough. Meat offers lots of nutrients in the short term, but causes cancer/diabetes/heart disease/atherosclerosis in the long term.
Erotetic wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Yep, I'm sure there are exceptions where some people are forced to eat animal products. In general this is not the case for humans. Are these Tibetans eating fish mainly? If they're eating land animals, then my question is what are the land animals eating? The paddocks used to feed the land animals could feed humans directly, at much higher efficiency.


paddocks?
livestock are able to graze on land that isn't suitable for horticulture. you can't just presume they're squandering prime horticultural land.

If we're talking about large herds of land animals, then they require large paddocks for prime horticulture. If they're not on paddocks like these, then the farmers need to give them supplementary feed (such as hay, grain) which was from prime horticultural land. If we're talking only about livestock who can graze poor quality land opportunistically, then we're necessarily talking about very small stocking densities, and therefore an extremely tiny portion of the overall food supply.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
swayze
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:00 am 
 

Erotetic wrote:
swayze wrote:
I'm not going to try to prove that meat is healthy, because I don't want to invest time into this. Over the years, I've spent a lot of hours researching nutrition and I've gathered lot of experiential knowledge through work. I've come to the conclusions that I have, after giving a vegetarian diet a fair shot by the way, and I hold strong convictions that aren't likely to change. I believe that quality meat is good for a majority of people


it's pretty hard to find critiques of the Harvard cancer study, though. d'you know any good ones?


It was a 22-year study that observed over 100 000 people. Information on diets was gathered via questionnaire every four years. Not exactly accurate science, but I digress. My issue with it and other studies on red meat is the same as I'd mentioned earlier: they aren't differentiating between naturally-farmed (what I call "consumer-grade") meat with factory-farmed (what I call "industrial-grade") meat. I generally agree with the results of the Harvard study: eat lots of shitty red meat and your risk for all sorts of health issues increases. I haven't been talking about shitty red meat in this thread though. One can't lump all red meat into one category; a steak from a grass-fed, happy cow is totally different than a steak from a corn-fed, drylot cow (ideal ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids, good CLA content, healthy saturated fat, no carcinogenic antibiotics and hormones, etc). But what they do in these studies is exactly that: they lump it all together under the tag "red meat". It's too general for me, and it doesn't apply to the meat I actually eat. For people who don't need much meat or who can't afford the good stuff, I think weaning themselves off industrial-grade, cancer-causing crap is a good idea.

Forbinator wrote:
Meat offers lots of nutrients in the short term, but causes cancer/diabetes/heart disease/atherosclerosis in the long term.


Fruits and veggies sprayed with pesticides also offer lots of nutrients in the short-term, and cancer in the long term. The answer isn't so black and white. There are many different solutions; meat isn't the only issue, the system itself contains tons of issues like these. By the way, you mentioned that you're the only guy backing your arguments up with scientific links. I put "science" in bunny ears earlier, because posting "scientific links" means way less than it used to. The worlds of academia, science, and business are merging like never before, and there's a lot of junk science out there that you have to filter through. You can't just post a study and say its conclusions are facts; if you could, those studies that came out earlier this year, saying that (a) organics are no better than conventional and (b) eggs are as bad for you as smoking, would be true, but they're crap studies funded by business out for profit. The reverence that people hold for studies can be borderline religious; it has to do with faith in a system that's rapidly changing.

Top
 Profile  
megalowho
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 479
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:45 am 
 

Responding to Erotetic's response to my last post:

I'm mainly reiterating and expanding upon what I've already said or implied, but there is such a thing as being too philosophical in one's ethics. Consider the three cases I referred to in my last post:

A. If it's in your power to rescue a drowning child merely at the cost of a nice outfit, and you decide not to, you've acted immorally. (This is about as uncontroversial as anything gets in ethical theory.) Analogously, if it's in your power to prevent multiple avoidable poverty-related deaths at the cost of some personal luxury items, and you decide not to, you've acted immorally. (But opinions on the latter are commonly split between (a) substituting "decided not to act charitably" for "acted immorally", and (b) accepting moral condemnation, but only up to a point, on the view that it's forgivable to indulge in a moderate amount of luxury.)

B. If you turn over the Jews in your house to Nazi interrogators, you've morally failed (insofar as it was within your power to tell a convincing lie and avoid worse consequences). Kantian absolutism is not the right guide in this and similar cases.

C. If you kill one of your children in order to prevent a villain from murdering two (or more, or however many it would take to outweigh the collective unhappiness that results from your killing the one), then you've acted immorally; or, at the very least, you've done something deeply regrettable that casts severe doubt on your integrity as a moral agent. If a strict utilitarianism is true, however, then you did the right thing, and if you know you did the right thing, then it would be wrongheaded of you to regret your decision, and you know it would be wrongheaded of anyone else to doubt your integrity. But this is absurd. So utilitarianism is not the right guide in this and similar cases.

Now here's what happens if we're too philosophical in each case:

In (A), we might do one of a few things. We might recognize that it's arbitrary to accept the argument's conclusion only "up to a point", and so we might devote all our surplus time and money to preventing avoidable suffering and death, while (for consistency's sake) condemning everyone who refuses to follow our example. Or we might sense the absurdity of this option, and we might accordingly argue that one or another of the argument's tacit premises is false. But which one? Do we really want to deny that we have a moral duty to save the drowning child when the only other thing at stake is a nice outfit? Are we really going to react with puzzlement or pompous scorn when others say there's something wrong with us? Is the lesson that we don't even have a duty to care for our own children? (After all, it'd be arbitrary favoritism to say that our children are morally entitled to our care, while those of strangers aren't! Right?)

In (B), we might sense the absurdity of Kant's conclusion and so, for honesty's sake, devote the requisite effort to understanding his moral philosophy and identifying the errors in his thought. But Kant's a formidable philosopher! Suppose we lack his insightfulness and argumentative powers: Do we then, for honesty's sake, suspend judgment as to whether lying is categorically wrong? (After all, if we persist in our disagreement, we're illegitimately substituting what makes us comfortable for what we understand to be truly moral.) Or suppose we diagnose his argument as sound: Must we then take the common, dissenting view - according to which, it's sometimes okay to lie, and sometimes even immoral not to lie - as the product of philosophical ineptitude, or worse, depravity?

In (C), etc. (The results more-or-less parallel those in (B).)

I think the lesson here is that ethics isn't like, say, a mathematical science. We might with some legitimacy criticize Euclid for having failed to prove the parallel postulate, and proceeded on a mere arbitrary assumption. But if we approach ethics in the same spirit, we're likely to become monsters or imbeciles, as my examples illustrate.

Ethics is messy and imprecise. It's human. Our actions and judgments are inevitably informed by a variety of distinct and potentially conflicting values. And I happen to be of the opinion that moral realism (roughly, the view that "Murder is wrong" etc. can have a truth-value, independently of our opinions, in something like the sense that "2+2=4" and "Mars is between Earth and Jupiter" can) is false; moral discourse is "merely" a useful - and inevitable - way of speaking and thinking. It helps real people navigate real problems, in order to secure important benefits and appease the conscience. Our moral philosophy has to be faithful to the ways in which we actually think and feel, but not to the point of assuring us that we can do no wrong. Reason can go a long way in rectifying inconsistencies and expanding our perspective, but of itself, it's powerless to motivate; it has to act upon the concerns we already have. I think Hume was right on this.

As to the relevance of this to veganism: If people care not to contribute to the misery of animals and the destruction of the planet, especially not when the purpose of these contributions is to please the taste buds, and if people care to be consistent (but not stupidly so, as in the above examples), then it's reasonable to expect that they'll be at least somewhat moved by (if perhaps initially hostile to) the considerations in favor of a more animal-friendly diet. And if someone purports to challenge these considerations on the basis that "Animal suffering is bad" can't be established with the same kind of certainty as the Pythagorean theorem, I think they betray at least a certain naivete with respect to the nature and purpose of moral philosophy.

By the way, whatever your take on my arguments here, I appreciate that you're engaging me respectfully, and I apologize if I've in any way failed to do the same.

Erotetic wrote:
what's your stance on the morality of breeding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo


It's something that very many people take much too lightly. Considerations of the child's well-being (and the preservation of resources) are too often neglected. I myself have very little (if any) business being a father, and no desire to, and I think David Benatar's arguments (see his book Better Never to Have Been) are worth taking seriously, although at points they strike me as merely clever. So, although I'm quite sympathetic to antinatalism, I couldn't in all seriousness embrace a conclusion that would have me view my sister's decision not to have an abortion as a moral failure.

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:54 am 
 

swayze wrote:
...they aren't differentiating between naturally-farmed (what I call "consumer-grade") meat with factory-farmed (what I call "industrial-grade") meat. I generally agree with the results of the Harvard study: eat lots of shitty red meat and your risk for all sorts of health issues increases. I haven't been talking about shitty red meat in this thread though. One can't lump all red meat into one category; a steak from a grass-fed, happy cow is totally different than a steak from a corn-fed, drylot cow (ideal ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids, good CLA content, healthy saturated fat, no carcinogenic antibiotics and hormones, etc). But what they do in these studies is exactly that: they lump it all together under the tag "red meat". It's too general for me, and it doesn't apply to the meat I actually eat. For people who don't need much meat or who can't afford the good stuff, I think weaning themselves off industrial-grade, cancer-causing crap is a good idea.

I can accept that higher quality meat may be less likely to cause cancer, but diabetes is related to the excessive protein content of meat, and atherosclerosis/heart disease is related to the cholesterol. Both of these factors are independent of meat quality. Also, the higher the quality of the meat, the more damaging its production is to the environment, and the more damaging it is to the world's food shortage (see earlier comments about how it takes 10kg of grass to produce 1kg of beef).

swayze wrote:
Fruits and veggies sprayed with pesticides also offer lots of nutrients in the short-term, and cancer in the long term. The answer isn't so black and white. There are many different solutions; meat isn't the only issue, the system itself contains tons of issues like these.

We can choose to avoid pesticides by purchasing organic, or washing our vegetables (less effective). The pesticide argument is not a valid argument against veganism, but the cholesterol argument certainly is a valid argument against all animal products. The fact that we deposit cholesterol in our arteries instead of metabolising it properly, indicates that we are not physiologically equipped to consume it.

swayze wrote:
By the way, you mentioned that you're the only guy backing your arguments up with scientific links. I put "science" in bunny ears earlier, because posting "scientific links" means way less than it used to. The worlds of academia, science, and business are merging like never before, and there's a lot of junk science out there that you have to filter through. You can't just post a study and say its conclusions are facts; if you could, those studies that came out earlier this year, saying that (a) organics are no better than conventional and (b) eggs are as bad for you as smoking, would be true, but they're crap studies funded by business out for profit. The reverence that people hold for studies can be borderline religious; it has to do with faith in a system that's rapidly changing.

I certainly agree with approaching scientific studies with healthy skepticism, and I welcome it for the links that I posted. One major problem is with studies that are funded by the agricultural sector, and which will naturally try to tell us to eat animal products. Eggs are pretty bad for you though; the cholesterol content is enormous, and heart disease is our biggest killer. I don't know how the numbers compare with smoking-related deaths, but it's plausible that they would be similar. It would be difficult to attribute those deaths entirely to eggs though.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
swayze
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:36 am 
 

I'll quickly state that I think that the obsession with low-cholesterol is an unhealthy one. Cholesterol, especially in eggs, is vital to us. There's lots of literature out there that supports this. In my opinion, almost all extreme approaches - low-fat, no-fat, low-cholesterol, no-cholesterol, superhigh-protein, low-protein, no-fruit, low-sodium, no-sodium, etc. etc. - tend to be wrong in one way or another. Things aren't this black and white. We're not all the same, and different things work for different people. Anyway, I barely had time to read your response, as I have to run to work, but I'll respond later. I wanted to mention the cholesterol thing though; look into the industry myths behind saturated fats and cholesterols... They're not all made equally, and if high-saturated fat diets were the killers they're supposed to be, the Inuit peoples would have had heart disease and diabetes en masse... But they didn't start getting heart disease and diabetes until the introduction of a Western diet high in carbohydrate and processed foods.

Top
 Profile  
Numerator_41
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:06 am
Posts: 1127
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:12 pm 
 

On the topic of eating meat not being "natural" for humans, this is a decent read.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/com ... t-3a.shtml
_________________
SatanSmells wrote:
FUKK YOU WHO FUKKING KARES

Top
 Profile  
Aquarius
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 589
Location: Czech Republic
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:48 pm 
 

I am not a vegan but I have been almost a vegetarian for many years. Sometimes I have fish or chicken, that is all. I can imagine giving up meat fully someday because I do not need it.
I have no problem with people who like meat but I do mind the way farm animals are often treated. It is really horrible and it is also possible due to our indolence.
Many people regard animals as mere things and as such they exploit and torture them, which is sick.
I do not want to preach anyone what he (she) should or shouldn't eat, it is everyone business.
There are many pieces of information on net about vegetarianism and veganism so one can make choice.
I recommend you watching the following video. Do not take it as a promotion of a lifestyle, it is rather
a speech for deliberation by a man who I admire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hONEPDUwV5A
_________________
Zbohatlíci zbohatlí, na čem jste to zbohatli?
My Space

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9632
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:22 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Also, someone mentioned preaching, which I would define as saying "you should [insert action]". Stating facts, followed by logical inferences based on those facts, is not preaching.

Calling people "brainwashed" because they don't follow your lifestyle is preaching. So is calling meat eaters "animal abusers", so is comparing them to rapists and pedophiles, and so on. :rolleyes:

Forbinator wrote:
There's no reason to judge omnivores. All we can do is inform them of how their behaviour harms others.

In other words: preaching to them.

You keep saying that you are posting scientific reasons for your bullshit, and "refuting myths" and what not, but you know what? That doesn't mean anything, because your reason for your veganism is a moral judgment, nothing more. It has nothing, and I do mean nothing, to do with scientific merit. It's a moral choice, no more. People who eat meat have made a different moral choice than yours; they haven't been brainwashed, and they aren't (necessarily) ignorant. They simply disagree with you about the morality of killing animals.

I bet that is why you're preaching: because when you run out of "scientific" arguments, and all that's left is disagreement over the morality of killing animals for food, you have nothing left but comparisons to rapists and child molesters and completely laughable and fallacious appeals to emotion with babies and bunnies and apples.

(Btw: lol @ comparing avocado with cheese. Seriously? Maybe Australia only has horrible cheeses, I don't know...)

Aszfargoth wrote:
Q: How do you recognize a vegan? A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.

:lol:
_________________
Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old
Extreme_violence wrote:
Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:43 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Also, someone mentioned preaching, which I would define as saying "you should [insert action]". Stating facts, followed by logical inferences based on those facts, is not preaching.

Calling people "brainwashed" because they don't follow your lifestyle is preaching. So is calling meat eaters "animal abusers", so is comparing them to rapists and pedophiles, and so on. :rolleyes:
Forbinator wrote:
Brainwash refers to a state of believing something, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, because it has been repeated so many times (in this case by major corporations who stand to benefit from you believing it). This applies exactly to the milk = strong bones myth. If the belief that milk = strong bones isn't an example of brainwash, what would you like to call it?

Are you disagreeing with the idea that milk = strong bones is a myth? If so, I refer you to the links from earlier. Maybe brainwash is a strong word to describe the belief in this myth. Would ignorance be a less strong but still acceptable word? Or are you saying I shouldn't use all that sciencey stuff to prove my points, and should instead operate based on hunches and tea-leaf readings?

If hanging an animal upside-down and slashing its throat isn't abuse, then I'm not sure what is, but if you're really just objecting to wording, would you like me to call it something else? Would it matter?

I wasn't the one who initially mentioned rapists and paedophiles, but there are similarities and differences, so let's not exaggerate too much. The similarities involve a high level of harm inflicted to gain a transient and small pleasure. The differences involve a potential lack of knowledge of the harm being inflicted, social acceptability, and the species of the victim.

Morrigan wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
There's no reason to judge omnivores. All we can do is inform them of how their behaviour harms others.

In other words: preaching to them.

You keep saying that you are posting scientific reasons for your bullshit, and "refuting myths" and what not, but you know what? That doesn't mean anything, because your reason for your veganism is a moral judgment, nothing more. It has nothing, and I do mean nothing, to do with scientific merit. It's a moral choice, no more. People who eat meat have made a different moral choice than yours; they haven't been brainwashed, and they aren't (necessarily) ignorant. They simply disagree with you about the morality of killing animals.

I bet that is why you're preaching: because when you run out of "scientific" arguments, and all that's left is disagreement over the morality of killing animals for food, you have nothing left but comparisons to rapists and child molesters and completely laughable and fallacious appeals to emotion with babies and bunnies and apples.

You've stated that my reasoning for veganism is moral judgment and nothing more, but how do you know this? If it were purely moral, surely it wouldn't have taken 29 years to change. Surely a child could have figured it out if it were purely moral. I'm telling you that it was based on a great deal of fact, most of which I have posted here.

I've decided to provide information in this thread, because it seems that it is stuff that people didn't previously know. Imagine if the general public didn't know that, for example, the paper they buy comes from trees, which are our oxygen source. That would really suck because everyone would continue to use excessive paper without even having the power that allows an informed choice. But since people have this knowledge, they can choose how much paper they use based on the knowledge. Of course people will have different moral views about how much paper they should/shouldn't use, but the greater overall good is achieved by people knowing where their paper comes from.

Here's where I agree with you: once all the scientific arguments have been exhausted, all that's left is morality, which is difficult and probably pointless to argue over. But wouldn't it suck if people didn't even have the base information needed to make their moral choices?

By focusing on the bunny/apple thing, and mentions of rapists/paedophiles, you focus on the weaker aspects of my argument which are not based in science. Stronger scientific arguments can be found in my points numbered 1-5 on the first page, and also in the four separate links I posted to debunk the dairy myth.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
SatanicProgDoomGrind
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:41 pm
Posts: 4
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:10 pm 
 

I am vegan, I subscribe to the moral reasoning that one should not kill another living, conscious thing to sustain themselves if they don't have to, but I'm forced to wonder why you created this thread, as it has very little to do with metal, and that's being generous. I understand it's the tavern, but what the heck's the point in bringing that up? Maybe a vegan metal band thread or animal rights lyrics thread or maybe a discussion on the philosophical and/or ethical merits of Black Metal Vegan Chef....but this thread seems ridiculous.

Top
 Profile  
jute
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:30 am
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:21 pm 
 

To answer the question posed in the thread's title, I have been a vegan for six years and have been listening to metal the bulk of my life. Speaking anecdotally, I know many vegans but few listen to metal regularly. The subcultures have other commonalities in my experience, however, like a high incidence of atheism and an interest in other non-mainstream, marginalized art, literature, film, etc.
_________________
Jute Gyte - experimental black metal, electronics

Top
 Profile  
soul_schizm
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:55 am
Posts: 647
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:24 am 
 

SatanicProgDoomGrind wrote:
I am vegan, I subscribe to the moral reasoning that one should not kill another living, conscious thing to sustain themselves if they don't have to, but I'm forced to wonder why you created this thread, as it has very little to do with metal, and that's being generous. I understand it's the tavern, but what the heck's the point in bringing that up? Maybe a vegan metal band thread or animal rights lyrics thread or maybe a discussion on the philosophical and/or ethical merits of Black Metal Vegan Chef....but this thread seems ridiculous.


On that we agree. This thread seems like a pretentious, preening waste of time.

You are a vegan, great. I'm happy for you, and I'm sure there are benefits. But -- don't presume to tell me what to do. /End.

Top
 Profile  
CrushedRevelation
Devil's right hand

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:47 am
Posts: 4971
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:55 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Are you disagreeing with the idea that milk = strong bones is a myth?


For someone who is dead against the harming of animals, you sure do like beating a dead horse...

Can you explain to me exactly WHY it is harmful to the animal when milk is taken? Say, a single cow. In simple English eh? Is it stealing? Does the mean, nasty, nay, evil dairy farmer shoot the cow when empty, due to the "single use only" brand on it's backside?

I could not care less about your articles "debunking" milk as the be all and the end all of calcium intake for strong bones, it is irrelevant to many peoples lifestyle, they simply enjoy the taste. Yes there are other options, and some people can't ingest dairy due to intolerance, and well I pity them, because soy milk (and it's cohort of other imitators) is utterly disgusting.

However, other articles that were cited in (one of) your "debukers" also stated that it was "difficult to devise a diet that is “bone healthy” without including three servings of dairy per day, not just because of dairy calcium, but dairy protein and potassium as well." (here), as well as another proclaiming the benefits of "Diets Higher in Dairy Foods and Dietary Protein Support Bone Health during Diet- and Exercise-Induced Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Premenopausal Women". Both seem to make good reason to ingest dairy to me, ESPECIALLY this bit: "Conclusions: Hypoenergetic diets higher in dairy foods, dietary calcium, and protein with daily exercise, favorably affected important bone health biomarkers vs. diets with less of these bone-supporting nutrients."
_________________
Not for mercy does the evolution of I progress...

My collection

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:30 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Are you disagreeing with the idea that milk = strong bones is a myth? If so, I refer you to the links from earlier. Maybe brainwash is a strong word to describe the belief in this myth. Would ignorance be a less strong but still acceptable word? Or are you saying I shouldn't use all that sciencey stuff to prove my points, and should instead operate based on hunches and tea-leaf readings?

You're essentially attacking a strawman here: you've brought the idea up yourself, and now you keep pressing the point that there's a "myth" to "debunk" and that everybody else has been "brainwashed". I personally haven't drunk any milk since 1993, and I keep my bones strong with plenty of fatty fish, but that's a myth, too, right?

Actually, you yourself seem like you've been brainwashed, seeing that your fervor here is roughly equal to a extreme christian handing out leaflets. Preaching, that is.

Forbinator wrote:
You've stated that my reasoning for veganism is moral judgment and nothing more, but how do you know this? If it were purely moral, surely it wouldn't have taken 29 years to change. Surely a child could have figured it out if it were purely moral. I'm telling you that it was based on a great deal of fact, most of which I have posted here.

It is purely a moral judgement. It's your choice. That's all. Everybody can make that same choice if they want, and that's all it is, a choice. There's no science that says dropping all aminal products is somehow necessary, just like there's no science that could conclusively prove that animal products are the only choice, hence, a moral choice.

Sure, there issues that might turn the discussion to forums way above the individual level; we might run out of food if everybody kept eating the massively resource draining beef, the fish might go extinct, there might be laws limiting the availability of meat, etc. But even laws are essentially collective moral decisions. There is NO science that says we all should be vegans.

And as I've said many times before even on this forum, the greatest and saddest failure of vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is the odd insistence on emulating animal-based foods when there are purely vegetarian excellent choices available. Soy sausages to replace the meat varieties for BBQ? Tastes like crap, and you could as well go with mushrooms, peppers and eggplant, for example, and get something edible instead of a crappy tube of environmentally harmful bean refuse. Soy milk? Why the fuck would anyone need that, when there's, oh, say ...juice available? So that you can pretend to be a "normal" but illuminated and better person, who wants to maintain a facade that desperately claims that you haven't had to sacrifice anything? Soy-based beef replica for hamburgers? Vile, unnecessary, and apologetic, get falafels or honest vegetarian slices of something instead of Soylent Brown. Please.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Bezerko
Vladimir Poopin

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:50 am
Posts: 4806
Location: Venestraya
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:40 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
(Btw: lol @ comparing avocado with cheese. Seriously? Maybe Australia only has horrible cheeses, I don't know...)


Australia has some great cheese. You just have to pay for it. :)

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1974
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:15 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
I've decided to provide information in this thread, because it seems that it is stuff that people didn't previously know. Imagine if the general public didn't know that, for example, the paper they buy comes from trees, which are our oxygen source. That would really suck because everyone would continue to use excessive paper without even having the power that allows an informed choice. But since people have this knowledge, they can choose how much paper they use based on the knowledge. Of course people will have different moral views about how much paper they should/shouldn't use, but the greater overall good is achieved by people knowing where their paper comes from.


It is due to people high-lighting the plight of (especially) commercially raised animals that causes people to think and realise the distressing conditions animals are sometimes kept, and hopefully demand meat and animal products from well managed facilities, not so intensely farmed; as hens were raised in the past (unable to even turn around).
We should never see animals as existing purely for our benefit, and how we look after them in the food industry reflects how we as humans are morally progressing.
That's why I greatly admire native Americans because, they mostly killed only what they needed, and were said to say a small prayer for the animal; asking forgiveness from the great spirit and thanking the animals for providing them with food. You don't need to believe in a great spirit or whether sentient beings have a soul to know that animals should be kept free from as much distress as possible, and anyone inflicting unnecessary cruelty or showing disrespect for their weaker charges should never be allowed to work with or keep animals ever again.

Top
 Profile  
Uncolored
Death Metal Fundamentalist

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:19 am
Posts: 755
Location: Cagliari/Italy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:04 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
I've decided to provide information in this thread


please give up. as you can see almost no one is giving a flying fuck! try to think like me... the more people eat meat the more people will get cancer (or other mortal health issues) = vegan people will be the only population alive in like 100 years! :-D

Napero wrote:
the greatest and saddest failure of vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is the odd insistence on emulating animal-based foods

napero my friend this is not odd. sausage or burger is just a "shape" that is made for cooking stuff easily. if pyramidal steaks were easiest to cook they would probably have that shape. :-D
_________________
Germaniac wrote:
Caller Of The Storms may be black, but he has an aryan heart.

SatanHussein wrote:
my dream is to organise a funeral doom festival and sell my stockpiles of antidepressants at the merch stand

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:35 am 
 

swayze wrote:
I'll quickly state that I think that the obsession with low-cholesterol is an unhealthy one. Cholesterol, especially in eggs, is vital to us. There's lots of literature out there that supports this. In my opinion, almost all extreme approaches - low-fat, no-fat, low-cholesterol, no-cholesterol, superhigh-protein, low-protein, no-fruit, low-sodium, no-sodium, etc. etc. - tend to be wrong in one way or another. Things aren't this black and white. We're not all the same, and different things work for different people. Anyway, I barely had time to read your response, as I have to run to work, but I'll respond later. I wanted to mention the cholesterol thing though; look into the industry myths behind saturated fats and cholesterols... They're not all made equally, and if high-saturated fat diets were the killers they're supposed to be, the Inuit peoples would have had heart disease and diabetes en masse... But they didn't start getting heart disease and diabetes until the introduction of a Western diet high in carbohydrate and processed foods.

Our livers produce all the cholesterol we need, so we do not need to consume any. I acknowledge that consuming small amounts probably doesn't do much harm (as with most things). Western diet definitely exacerbates the effects of cholesterol, but if you refer to the China Study, which doesn't choose the easy target of the Western diet, even relatively small decreases in dietary cholesterol reduce the likelihood of atherosclerosis/heart disease.

CrushedRevelation wrote:
Can you explain to me exactly WHY it is harmful to the animal when milk is taken? Say, a single cow. In simple English eh? Is it stealing? Does the mean, nasty, nay, evil dairy farmer shoot the cow when empty, due to the "single use only" brand on it's backside?

I've mentioned a lot of this already, but I'll list some of the harmful aspects to animal welfare. I'll only elaborate on certain points if asked to:
1. Removal of baby from its mother at birth is traumatic to both, and given the hormonal similarities between mammals, the comparison I made with if I stole infants from a hospital isn't too far from the truth.
2. 30-40% of dairy cows are born with supernumerary teats, which are cut off with scissors, and no anaesthetic: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lXS ... at&f=false
3. Once taken from their mothers, the calves are kept in tiny pens with no stimulation, being fed poor imitation milk power mixed with the mastitis milk that couldn't go in the vat.
4. The high metabolic demand placed on the cow by being forced to get pregnant every year, and having her calf induced a high percentage of the time in order to fit in with the yearly schedule.
5. Ear-tagging and branding done without pain relief. EDIT: I forgot about tail-docking without pain relief.
6. The use of moving electric fences and beating of cows to force them to go where the farmer needs them to go.
7. Milking machines are the main method of spread of mastitis, so most cases are directly the fault of the farming process. Mastitis is painful, and only treated in cases where it is seen as economically beneficial.
8. Male calves (bobby calves) are deprived of food, or fed iron-poor food in veal crates before being killed for veal.
9. Selective breeding has meant that udder size is so big that cows will get them caught on wire fences, or accidentally stand on their own udders (called a "degloving" injury).
10. Dairy cows have a high incidence of lameness due to having to walk significant distances under stress (ie a farmer chasing them down from behind in a four-wheel bike). This makes them more likely to get stones stuck in their feet. They then have to stand on concrete for hours waiting to be milked each day, further increasing the incidence of lameness. In non-stressful conditions, cows are able to avoid stepping on harmful objects and under normal circumstances shouldn't go lame.
11. Once dairy cows become too lame, they are slaughtered, but because they can barely move, things like forklifts and electric prods are necessary to force them to limp into the slaughterhouse.
12. Unnaturally high stocking rates mean that gastrointestinal worm burdens can reach extremely high levels, so again this is a veterinary condition that is essentially the fault of humans.

These welfare points are in addition to the obvious health and environmental based arguments.

CrushedRevelation wrote:
However, other articles that were cited in (one of) your "debukers" also stated that it was "difficult to devise a diet that is “bone healthy” without including three servings of dairy per day, not just because of dairy calcium, but dairy protein and potassium as well." (here), as well as another proclaiming the benefits of "Diets Higher in Dairy Foods and Dietary Protein Support Bone Health during Diet- and Exercise-Induced Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Premenopausal Women". Both seem to make good reason to ingest dairy to me, ESPECIALLY this bit: "Conclusions: Hypoenergetic diets higher in dairy foods, dietary calcium, and protein with daily exercise, favorably affected important bone health biomarkers vs. diets with less of these bone-supporting nutrients."

Thankyou for providing those articles as they certainly do provide an alternative view on the role of dairy in bone health. Note, however, that dairy is never stated as being necessary for bone health. A criticism would be that neither article offers an explanation for why Westerners (who ingest lots of dairy) have such high rates of osteoporosis when compared to the Chinese who ingest far less dairy. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MOY ... oc_r&cad=4 (see "Osteoporosis" pg 204) Indeed, even within China the osteoporosis rates were higher in those who ingested higher amounts of animal protein. I appreciate that your links contradict this, but the sample sizes are nowhere near as big as those used in the China Study. Certainly, you have cast some doubt over the results though. The links you posted don't say anything about how the high levels of animal protein in milk are broken down to amino acids, increasing the acidity in the blood such that calcium-phosphate is actually leeched out of the bones so that the phosphate acts as a buffer. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/1/118.full I certainly agree that calcium intake is good for bone health, but it seems that the benefit is nullified when excess animal protein is consumed.

In summary, other plentiful sources of calcium exist, which definitely do assist bone health, but without the increased risk of heart disease, prostate/breast cancer and which are completely "animal-friendly".

Napero, well done for not subscribing to the dairy myth. It certainly would be an oversimplification if I tried to claim that EVERY omnivore subscribes to every myth that I posted. I understand what you mean by the strawman argument, but several people have replied here indicating that they do in fact believe in certain myths. That doesn't mean that every single one of you does though, of course.

In general I'm finding it difficult to avoid approaching the topic with "fervour", but if you knew that someone was being abused, would you keep quiet about it? Or speak out? I've already addressed the brainwashing argument, even by quoting myself, so I won't do that again. And christians have no scientific basis for their views, as I've explained. I certainly do have a scientific basis, even if some contradictory studies exist (in which case, which study should one choose to believe?)

Napero wrote:
There is NO science that says we all should be vegans.

I agree. Science can be used as a basis for the choice though, as I explained in response to Morrigan.

Napero wrote:
And as I've said many times before even on this forum, the greatest and saddest failure of vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is the odd insistence on emulating animal-based foods when there are purely vegetarian excellent choices available. Soy sausages to replace the meat varieties for BBQ? Tastes like crap, and you could as well go with mushrooms, peppers and eggplant, for example, and get something edible instead of a crappy tube of environmentally harmful bean refuse. Soy milk? Why the fuck would anyone need that, when there's, oh, say ...juice available? So that you can pretend to be a "normal" but illuminated and better person, who wants to maintain a facade that desperately claims that you haven't had to sacrifice anything? Soy-based beef replica for hamburgers? Vile, unnecessary, and apologetic, get falafels or honest vegetarian slices of something instead of Soylent Brown. Please.

I agree with everything you've said in this paragraph, but aren't you now the one attacking a strawman? Never once have I advocated fake meats etc.

Other people have mentioned how this thread is pointless etc. This is a discussion board though. By extension all discussion could be considered pointless. People can do as they choose with the information presented.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD


Last edited by Forbinator on Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1974
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:24 am 
 

Uncolored wrote:
vegan people will be the only population alive in like 100 years!


As long as in another 1000 we don't turn into Eloi :-D

Yes, let's hope one day, through scientific advances, we can safely discard any need to use or harm animals.

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:44 am 
 

mindshadow wrote:
Yes, let's hope one day, through scientific advances, we can safely discard any need to use or harm animals.

We already have. :)
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:56 am 
 

Uncolored wrote:
napero my friend this is not odd. sausage or burger is just a "shape" that is made for cooking stuff easily. if pyramidal steaks were easiest to cook they would probably have that shape. :-D

Well... there's a difference between shapes dictateted by the convenience of cooking, and then there's the other option, a brown chunk of coagulated bean goo that looks like a turd, smells bad, tastes like the soles of my feet... and someone better than you munches on it, practically looking disgusted while explaining how "you can't tell the difference between sirloin and tofu..." I don't mind the shapes, I was talking about the way some desperate individuals fool themselves into eating shit that's supposed to be "equal" to the real thing that should not be necessary for the lifestyle in any shape or form, essentially, instead of going for a honest veggie meal.

Forbinator wrote:
I agree with everything you've said in this paragraph, but aren't you now the one attacking a strawman? Never once have I advocated fake meats etc.

Don't put too much value on yourself, I have the right to discuss other things too, not just what you write.

Forbinator wrote:
Other people have mentioned how this thread is pointless etc. This is a discussion board though. By extension all discussion could be considered pointless. People can do as they choose with the information presented.

This is, first and foremost, a metal board, although one with rather heavy emphasis on free discussion. The freedom does not mean you can act like a Mormon and knock on the door with your pamphlets, and not expect to be rejected or ridiculed. You came to a metal board to preach veganism? Don't expect everybody to participate, encourage or appreciate you.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Uncolored
Death Metal Fundamentalist

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:19 am
Posts: 755
Location: Cagliari/Italy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:05 am 
 

Napero wrote:
I was talking about the way some desperate individuals fool themselves into eating shit that's supposed to be "equal" to the real thing that should not be necessary


that's a REAL myth mate!! I never ate tofu and I consume stuff like soy burgers once a month if ever!! vegans that eat pre made food like that is a very low %, at least here in europe.
_________________
Germaniac wrote:
Caller Of The Storms may be black, but he has an aryan heart.

SatanHussein wrote:
my dream is to organise a funeral doom festival and sell my stockpiles of antidepressants at the merch stand

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:56 am 
 

Uncolored wrote:
Napero wrote:
I was talking about the way some desperate individuals fool themselves into eating shit that's supposed to be "equal" to the real thing that should not be necessary


that's a REAL myth mate!! I never ate tofu and I consume stuff like soy burgers once a month if ever!! vegans that eat pre made food like that is a very low %, at least here in europe.

I know YOU eat well, thanks for the eggplant ideas, BTW. But I've seen this happen so many times during the past two decades, even including members of my extended family, that at least personally I can't consider this a myth. And the very existence of those culinary abominations proves that somewhere there is a group of people who need there gourmet crutches to survive on instead of good veggie food.

Yeah, many of them have been geeks with many other silly ideas and behaviourial traits as well, and most if not all of them have been VERY vocal about their lifestyles... which have been reversed a few years later.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9632
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:53 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Are you disagreeing with the idea that milk = strong bones is a myth? If so, I refer you to the links from earlier. Maybe brainwash is a strong word to describe the belief in this myth.

People don't drink milk because they want strong bones, they drink it because they like the taste. :durr:

Quote:
Or are you saying I shouldn't use all that sciencey stuff to prove my points, and should instead operate based on hunches and tea-leaf readings?

No, I'm saying that you cannot use science to determine a moral choice. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

Quote:
If hanging an animal upside-down and slashing its throat isn't abuse, then I'm not sure what is, but if you're really just objecting to wording, would you like me to call it something else? Would it matter?

Fine, you can call meat eaters "animal abusers" if you like, and I'll call you a preachy, obnoxious cunt in return. Deal? I mean they're just words, right?

Quote:
I wasn't the one who initially mentioned rapists and paedophiles, but there are similarities and differences, so let's not exaggerate too much. The similarities involve a high level of harm inflicted to gain a transient and small pleasure. The differences involve a potential lack of knowledge of the harm being inflicted, social acceptability, and the species of the victim.

You say the last thing like it's an afterthought. Jesus fucking christ...

Quote:
You've stated that my reasoning for veganism is moral judgment and nothing more, but how do you know this? If it were purely moral, surely it wouldn't have taken 29 years to change. Surely a child could have figured it out if it were purely moral. I'm telling you that it was based on a great deal of fact, most of which I have posted here.

Of course it's a purely moral decision. You either think killing animals for food is morally acceptable, or you don't. I don't know why it took you 29 years and I don't care. Perhaps you really thought meat came from a wonderful, magical animal and this magical animal gently cooperated to go in your plate all along and it took PETA to open your eyes, but most meat eaters aren't that dumb, they know harsh stuff happens to the animals they consume, jesus...
_________________
Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old
Extreme_violence wrote:
Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Top
 Profile  
PhilosophicalFrog
The Hypercube

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 7:08 pm
Posts: 5885
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:02 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
If hanging an animal upside-down and slashing its throat isn't abuse, then I'm not sure what is, but if you're really just objecting to wording, would you like me to call it something else? Would it matter?

Fine, you can call meat eaters "animal abusers" if you like, and I'll call you a preachy, obnoxious cunt in return. Deal? I mean they're just words, right?


:lol:

I'll also call it the only way to kill something without damaging the majority of the edible parts. You slash its throat, used to do it all the time on the farm back in Ohio. Also, death isn't abuse.
_________________
"...when someone tries to talk you into listening to any evil type of music, be it satanic, black metal, King Diamond, or techno, I beg you not to listen to it. Do not even take it into your hands!"

BAPTIST - drone, meditation, ambient

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:31 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Are you disagreeing with the idea that milk = strong bones is a myth? If so, I refer you to the links from earlier. Maybe brainwash is a strong word to describe the belief in this myth.

People don't drink milk because they want strong bones, they drink it because they like the taste. :durr:

We probably don't know enough to generalise either way. If it really were all about taste, why do the dairy companies feel the need to advertise the calcium content?

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
Or are you saying I shouldn't use all that sciencey stuff to prove my points, and should instead operate based on hunches and tea-leaf readings?

No, I'm saying that you cannot use science to determine a moral choice. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

Well, I have used science to contribute to a moral choice (but not be the 100% determining factor).

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
If hanging an animal upside-down and slashing its throat isn't abuse, then I'm not sure what is, but if you're really just objecting to wording, would you like me to call it something else? Would it matter?

Fine, you can call meat eaters "animal abusers" if you like, and I'll call you a preachy, obnoxious cunt in return. Deal? I mean they're just words, right?

Of course, but the words I used have more literal meaning than the words you used. You have referred to qualities that are more subjective than the physical pain responses of animals that I have referred to. Obviously the word "abuse" doesn't refer only to the death, but to all the things that happen to these animals.

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
I wasn't the one who initially mentioned rapists and paedophiles, but there are similarities and differences, so let's not exaggerate too much. The similarities involve a high level of harm inflicted to gain a transient and small pleasure. The differences involve a potential lack of knowledge of the harm being inflicted, social acceptability, and the species of the victim.

You say the last thing like it's an afterthought. Jesus fucking christ...

They should be an afterthought. Lack of knowledge of harm inflicted doesn't alter the level of harm inflicted. Social acceptability as a motivating force is invalid as it involves groupthink fallacy. Species is irrelevant unless there are proven differences between species that are relevant to the act being committed (eg. if oysters don't feel pain, then species differences come into play when considering pain).

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
You've stated that my reasoning for veganism is moral judgment and nothing more, but how do you know this? If it were purely moral, surely it wouldn't have taken 29 years to change. Surely a child could have figured it out if it were purely moral. I'm telling you that it was based on a great deal of fact, most of which I have posted here.

Of course it's a purely moral decision. You either think killing animals for food is morally acceptable, or you don't. I don't know why it took you 29 years and I don't care. Perhaps you really thought meat came from a wonderful, magical animal and this magical animal gently cooperated to go in your plate all along and it took PETA to open your eyes, but most meat eaters aren't that dumb, they know harsh stuff happens to the animals they consume, jesus...

If you think it's only about killing, then you have misinterpreted/misread this thread. There are lots of atrocities in food production that I didn't previously know about, and I'm sure many here did not know about, eg. cows having supernumerary teats cut off without anaesthetic. This is why information has value.

EDIT: My desktop dictionary defines abuse as "treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, esp. regularly or repeatedly". Do you still think I've used the word incorrectly? Whether abuse is morally wrong or not is up to people to decide for themselves. If I said "you shouldn't commit abuse" then that would be preaching, right?
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
megalowho
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 479
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:24 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
No, I'm saying that you cannot use science to determine a moral choice. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

Well, I have used science to contribute to a moral choice (but not be the 100% determining factor).


I think the idea is this: Moral arguments have normative ("ought") premises and factual ("is") premises. Neither sort of premise by itself is sufficient to establish a moral conclusion and thereby tell us what we ought to do in real-life situations. For example -

1. Punishment ought to be avoided unless it serves the purpose of preventing future crimes. (Normative premise. Whatever its merits, no amount of scientific investigation can inform us as to its plausibility.)
2. It is highly doubtful that capital punishment prevents future crimes. (Factual premise. It's based on scientific investigation.)
3. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that capital punishment is morally permissible.

Notice that if (1) is true, it nevertheless does not by itself entail (3). Likewise with (2).

Top
 Profile  
WebOfPiss
Myopic Void

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 2907
Location: Presidio Modelo
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:30 pm 
 

Sheesh, moral vegans are awful. Some of us just want to eat as few GMOs as possible.

Top
 Profile  
dystopia4
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:47 pm
Posts: 3524
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:31 pm 
 

Acting like you and everyone else who thinks like you are morally superior enlightened beings and everyone who disagrees are immoral sycophant drones is one of the worst possible ways to sway people to your viewpoint. Personally I love meat, but I certainly understand why some people don't for moral/ethical reasons, and that's fine. I would never attack someone for feeling eating animals is wrong. However, I hate it when people feel the need to push their belief on other people and act like they are monsters because of their dietary choices. Some friends and I grilled up some sausages at a tailgate party on the weekend, does that make us all evil people? I think not. The holier-than-thou preaching technique doesn't make people agree with you, it makes you make vegans look bad. It contributes to a negative stereotype of vegans being extremists and forcing their views on other people.

Look, I understand that animals often needlessly suffer. My dad and stepmom eat a 90% vegetarian diet and when they do eat meat, they buy it grass fed and organic, and often from local farmers (boar sausages are amazing). When I'm living with them I eat the same way. I do think it's best to buy organic and free range/grass fed and locally if possible, but that's not always feasible for everyone. Some people simply can't afford it. I think eating meat that you have personally hunted is 100% moral. It's something I would love to do when I get the financial ability and resources to do so. Animals hunt each other in nature for food, no? If eating meat makes someone immoral, than wouldn't at least 90% of the world be immoral? It's fine if you want to be a vegan, but please don't shove your views down our throats.
_________________
http://ifthisishellthenimlucky.blogspot.ca/

Top
 Profile  
King_Hands
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 629
Location: Indiana
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:04 pm 
 

When society inevitably crumbles, and human life descends once again into a dog eat dog struggle for survival, vegans are the first people who I will hunt for sport.

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
The XVI, dominar to over 258714 subjects

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 8789
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:07 pm 
 

King_Hands wrote:
When society inevitably crumbles, and human life descends once again into a dog eat dog struggle for survival, vegans are the first people who I will hunt for sport.

Let's not get crazy, ok? Dystopia proved that you argue with decency and respect.
_________________
PhilosophicalFrog wrote:
JESUS CRUST, I didn't know this was the goddamn pizza inquisition.

Metantoine's Magickal Realm
Last.fm
Halberd (doom/death)

Top
 Profile  
CorpseFister
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:07 pm
Posts: 1924
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:44 pm 
 

I'm sure most people are aware of this, but it's worth noting not all vegans are condescending proselytizers. A few of my friends are vegans and they haven't even broached the subject. If we have a BBQ or something, they cook veggie burgers and we cook steaks. No problem.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group