# Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices



## swilow

So, I thought in the midst of all our discussions on religion and spirituality that we don't always discuss ethics divorced from the divine. 

I have been a vegetarian for about 15 years now (I am 32), and have adopted veganism over the last 2 years. I am actually starting to eat dairy and eggs again as I have lost too much weight recently and feel very run down, so I made an ethical choice on my own behalf. I hope to gain some weight and reintegrate veganism back into my life with more planning and forethought this time.

But anyway, whats you opinion on such practises? Is it futile, or does it have real-world effect? Is that even the point of an ethical lifestyle choice, or is it more symbolic? I can't see how my or my girlfriends veganism has saved many lives or had that much impact, but that isn't neccesarily why I do it. I partially subscirbe to the tenets of deep ecology which suggests that animals lives are as valuable as humans, and not only in regards to their utility. This is important I believe.

I wish to:
-avoid causing suffering to animals. That's the main kindergarten reasoning. I empathise with and deeply respect animals, and wish no harm upon them.
-reduce the impact of mass factory farming and livestock raising on the environment. This reason has become more and more prominent, and is overtaking the first reason I mentioned in terms of inspiration to continue this lifestyle.
-avoid the personal suffering/toll inherent in causing pain and degradation to other lifeforms and the ecosystem they exist within. I think most people are aware of the sorrow of factory farming and mass slaughter of animals, and I think turning the other cheek to this creates a cognitive dissonance, resulting in guilt and reactionary apathy. It is a negative thing, performing actions that cause suffering.
-Maintain healthy levels of 'wild' mass consumed animals; here I refer to the massively depleted fishing stocks worldwide. I don't think my dinner is important enough to potentially condemn a species to oblivion.
-Health reasons. A diet low on red meat is thought to be more healthy in the long run, with vegetarians thought to live for several years longer then carnivores.

I use this lifestyle to try and purify myself and gain a closer communion with Earth and understand more deeply my own role here.

What do we have to say for and against such a lifestyle? I'd be happy for the discussion to encompass other alternative, ethical lifestyle choices...

Peace


----------



## Ninae

I've been a vegetarian since I left school. And my sisters also quit after me. So I've brought about 3 vegetarians to my defence. 

I didn't find it hard because the thought of eating animal flesh revolts me (as soon as I was able to think about it). And the suffering animals are put through is one of the things I hate most about this world. It virtually makes it an unfit place to live.


----------



## snazzy_sn

The kindergarten reason works on all fronts, including the dietary onesss.
:D


----------



## Abject

On an ethical basis, farming is bad for nature (both the environment and the livestock)
All the points you listed are true to me, other than some minor details and the last point.

I don't think the act of simply not buying animal product has any effect on the companies until you make it known, by protesting or writing letters to farms/abattoirs/whatever for example, so they can link a reduction of sales to the ethics of how they conduct their business.

Then there's the nutritional side of it.. I couldn't eat healthy without animal product. I don't know about vitamins/minerals but certainly my protein/fat/carb balance would be all fucked up. I would gain a lot of fat as a vegan/vego and I'd probably struggle to get in enough protein due to beans/lentils being the only viable option afaik. Also the taste... is that taste worth the suffering required?? No, but it has a monetary value and that's how I pay tribute to the cows/sheep/pigs/chickens/whatever else I eat.

I have had a few vegan friends myself (weird seeing as I go through _at least_ 4kg meat a week) but at a vegan friends house party I was talking with some guy and he was making the (quite comical) argument that it is an insult to our forefathers/ancestors that after all their struggles to get to the point where meat is so readily available to not eat it. I don't know how well this argument really holds up, but it had me in tears and gasping for air when we has making his case.


----------



## methamaniac

I think they need to reclassify fish and some birds as plants. It would make the whole vegetarian thing a lot easier.
I still wouldn't be able to go full vegan as I couldn't give up Jello.


----------



## Abject

Interestingly enough, from an ethical standpoint, I forget which people held this belief but to surmise it because fish/sea creatures and humans/land creatures do not share the same terrain? (missing word) it's morally worse for humans to eat/hunt from the sea than it is the land.


----------



## Ninae

Studies have shown commercial meat to be very toxic, prone to triggering diseases like cancer, and shortening of lifespan. Most meat products, like sausages, burgers, kebabs, etc. have no nutritional value, anyway (more like negative nutritional value). If you can afford organic steak it would be different.

Though this is a very unpopular view for all kinds of reasons. And mostly economical. But my father has worked in this field (meat inspecting) all his life. Not that he was happy when we all chose to become vegetarian. But the sins of the fathers, etc.

My grandfather even worked as a butcher. I once asked him how he could do it and he said "You just cut the throat of the pig so quick he doesn't have time to feel it". He wasn't very delicate, but he had a real way with animals, if he was around they didn't care about anyone else. But he genuinly loved animals and I suppose it's good for someone like that to be in that position as he actually had compassion for them.


----------



## Abject

Ninae said:


> Studies have shown commercial meat to be very toxic, prone to triggering diseases like cancer, and shortening of lifespan. Most meat products, like sausages, burgers, kebabs, etc. have no nutritional value, anyway (more like negative nutritional value). If you can afford organic steak it would be different.


lololololol how confused u are

I love this whole grass-fed beef bullshit, back 20-30 years ago corn fed beef was the expensive stuff and grass fed was seen as the inferior cut. It's all marketing, but science doesn't lie and meat is literally the healthiest food around. Forget the proform vitamins, the minerals, the saturated fats, focus on the fact there's no other source of complete protein that is "pure"
but this isn't a nutritional discussion.


----------



## Birc0014

i find its getting harder and harder to eat meat as time passes, that wasnt intended to sound gay. even chicken is getting to be too much work, I have no faith in a vegetarian diet or any other diet for that matter, however I find I like things like avocado, high fat yogurt, hummus, eggs, cheese, nuts, and some seafoods but I still fuckin hate fish. this all seems to have coincided with me regularly taking opiates, maybe being a junky may lead to better food choices


----------



## swilow

Abject said:


> lololololol how confused u are
> 
> I love this whole grass-fed beef bullshit, back 20-30 years ago corn fed beef was the expensive stuff and grass fed was seen as the inferior cut. It's all marketing, but science doesn't lie and meat is literally the healthiest food around. Forget the proform vitamins, the minerals, the saturated fats, focus on the fact there's no other source of complete protein that is "pure"
> but this isn't a nutritional discussion.



There's room for that discussion though. Making a lifestyle choice based on nutrition is still an ethical decision. 

You possibly mean "complete" instead of "pure". There aren't many single sources that contain as much protein and broader vitamin/minerals, but there are plenty of vegetable sources that can be combined to give one a complete nutritional profile. And there is a huge difference between a steak and a sausage.



			
				Abject said:
			
		

> meat is literally the healthiest food around



What meat/s do you refer to? Red meat can be very high in saturated fats, and there is ample evidence that too much red meat can cause cardivascular disease. I'm not condeming meat at all; lean red meat is very very healthy, but your statement was slightly incorrect


----------



## Ninae

Abject said:


> lololololol how confused u are
> 
> I love this whole grass-fed beef bullshit, back 20-30 years ago corn fed beef was the expensive stuff and grass fed was seen as the inferior cut. It's all marketing, but science doesn't lie and meat is literally the healthiest food around. Forget the proform vitamins, the minerals, the saturated fats, focus on the fact there's no other source of complete protein that is "pure"
> but this isn't a nutritional discussion.



All meat-eaters say stuff like that. But that's only natural or how else are they supposed to feel comfortable eating meat. I'm sure if I was still eating meat I wouldn't like to consider any of that in particular.

But you are seriously misguided if you actually believe science has proved meat is the healthiest food around. It has done no such thing, on the contrary, it's been unwilling to disclose much of all the ways it can be harmful to our health. You are just repeating things you have been told and like to believe in. 

Also, most of the "research" and "marketing" in the food industry is used to promote meat consumption. That's where most of the money goes. Our economy would practically crash if everyone stopped eating meat over night and it's not what this society "wants" at this point in time. 

And it's not the only source of protein by any stretch. There is plenty of protein in diary, grains, seeds and nuts, bee products. There are proteins in fruits and vegetables too and egg is a perfect protein.

Anyway, this is such a divisive and emotional issue, there's no way to come to any agreement about it.


----------



## Abject

willow11 said:


> There's room for that discussion though. Making a lifestyle choice based on nutrition is still an ethical decision.


In that case, vegan and vegetarian diets would be very unethical for me and my eating habits. I have a big appetite, so I need to eat a lot of food to satisfy myself.
If I were to not eat animal product I would have to eat many more grams of carbs (and possibly fat) to reach the same level of satiety that meat can provide.
I also eat organs, which have many more vitamins than you'll find in any vegetables (you can actually have too much proform vitamin, compared to pissing out excess preform vitamins)



> You possibly mean "complete" instead of "pure".


No, I meant pure. Meat is around 25g of protein per 100g, give or take ~5g (except for american cut bacon maybe)
Depending on your animal and cut, I can have some lean kangaroo with 22g of protein and 1g of fat (and trace/negligible carbs) per 100g for less than 99 calories.
Compare that to any plant protein, whether it's lentils, peas, beans, nuts, whatever. You get the protein, but it also comes with double-triple that in carbs or fat, hence it being a "pure" source of protein.
If you need more protein, you eat more meat; less, less. If it were a plant source, you would have to compensate for the other macros (not that you ignore fat)



> What meat/s do you refer to?


When I say meat I mean a dead creature. Whether it's red, white, sea food, rodents or insects, it's all meat.
I was mainly referring to cows, sheep, pigs and chickens.



> Red meat can be very high in saturated fats


This is a good thing



> and there is ample evidence that too much red meat can cause cardivascular disease.


Can you please provide some decent evidence of this? I know epidemiological studies are suboptimal but the old links to cardiovascular disease have dispelled and I'm not aware of any good evidence at this stage.
I have seen some fairly decent evidence for a link between meat intake and colorectal cancer, but no other types of cancer or diseases.
Dietary cholesterol intake does not affect homeopathic cholesterol in average people. Saturated fat is not inherently bad for the heart and only impacts ones health negatively if the lifestyle (rest of diet, exercise) is unhealthy. You can eat all the saturated fat (and red meat) you want if you're healthy and your LDL won't suddenly spike up because of it.
In fact, if we want to get into it, the three saturated fats that are capable of raising your LDL are lauric, myristic, and palmitic acids, not the rest of the "saturated fats"



> but your statement was slightly incorrect


Please talk on what was incorrect, as you didn't actually mention anything other than cardiovascular disease which is unproven afaik. The amount of times I've heard people say "red meat is bad for the heart" feels unbelievable but that's literally what people thought only 30 years ago..

Ninae I don't feel the need to properly address your post other than the fact I never claimed meat is the only source of complete proteins, nor have you shown any of ways red meat is harmful..
If I was you, I would've started here but I feel like you're more the type to link to "the china study"

I called meat the healthiest food around as you could go the rest of your life without touching a carbohydrate. You need protein and fat to be healthy, and meat is the best source of protein.
As I said earlier, I would get fat trying to not eat animal product, therefore meat is the foundation of a healthy diet for me.

If I bring up the fact that your liver can only process so much sucrose/fructose before it becomes unhealthy and raises your LDL leading to cardiovascular disease, a proven piece of science (unlike the correlation used in epidemiological studies) how are you gonna convince me it's healthier to try and get protein from fruit? I treat fruit like junk food, and I actually feel it's healthier to eat dark chocolate than a banana, or quality ice cream over some pineapple.

Anyway, I've had my little spiel about nutrition and old lies being circulated. I wasn't really gonna make it about nutrition because that's just unfair on you guys. I agree that farming practices are unethical.
I can't imagine how bad my vitamin profile would be if I were to try and eat vegan.. i'd have to drop my fat intake dramatically or just stay in a calorie surplus and get fat as fuck, which is also unhealthy.. Enough of that.


----------



## -=SS=-

willow11 said:


> But anyway, whats you opinion on such practises? Is it futile, or does it have real-world effect? Is that even the point of an ethical lifestyle choice, or is it more symbolic? I can't see how my or my girlfriends veganism has saved many lives or had that much impact, but that isn't neccesarily why I do it. I partially subscirbe to the tenets of deep ecology which suggests that animals lives are as valuable as humans, and not only in regards to their utility. This is important I believe



From a 'spiritual' standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat. Nothing at all. People love to make reference to our brothers in India and elsewhere who choose to be vegetarian and use that as a base for justifying the "meat eating is not spiritual" position. All meat eating does is perturb brain chemistry slightly, which if you are trying to reach samadhi can hinder the clarity of your thinking process.. but at the end of the day eating meat would not prevent your from reaching any state.

Ethically I understand why people make the commitment they do. Factory farming and practices could be massively improved. But this is a symptom of a wider issue, that of rapid urbanization and the take over of life by the corporate-industrial-government state. Personally I don't care. I would love to see animals lives improved, I'd still eat them regardless, but for me I'd rather focus my efforts on solving the root of the problem and not make my life more difficult than it already is.. I don't particularly enjoy eating anyway but it's something I have to do to survive. Going vegetarian only makes my life more difficult whilst doing nothing to solve the real issue. Pissing into the wind is not a priority for me.


----------



## Ninae

-=SS=- said:


> From a 'spiritual' standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat.



This is really a simple issue. 

Imagine another higher evolved species came to our world. They would be significantly superior to us in terms of intelligence, culture, etc. and would equate us with animals they had the natural right to capture and exploit in any way that they wanted. 

Only I doubt there would be anyone who saw "nothing spiritually wrong" with us being reduced to that or just accepted the survival-of-the-fittest regime. I would bet most would cry out "Where is God?" in that scenario (in fact, in situations like that people tend to blame God). 

But there is no real difference to us and animals being treated that way (except in our minds). It's not like we matter more to God than animals. They're more like creatures placed in our care who we have failed. 

Still, animals forgive us for this. They have never-ending forgiveness because they're in a way closer to the divine than we are (they also don't blame God which is another thing they have to their advantage).


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae said:


> This is really a simple issue.



Yeh, it is. We're animals. They're animals. Animals eat animals all the time, it's part of the refining of material energy up the chain of biology to higher and more subtle forms. Your imagined scenario also presumes that we are not already food/cattle for another species of superior organism.. which in my opinion, we are, we just can't perceive them (our rapacious sexual expenditure is part of the equation).

Meat is a valid part of the human diet. End of story.


----------



## swilow

Abject said:


> In that case, vegan and vegetarian diets would be very unethical for me and my eating habits. I have a big appetite, so I need to eat a lot of food to satisfy myself.
> If I were to not eat animal product I would have to eat many more grams of carbs (and possibly fat) to reach the same level of satiety that meat can provide.
> I also eat organs, which have many more vitamins than you'll find in any vegetables (you can actually have too much proform vitamin, compared to pissing out excess preform vitamins)
> 
> 
> No, I meant pure. Meat is around 25g of protein per 100g, give or take ~5g (except for american cut bacon maybe)
> Depending on your animal and cut, I can have some lean kangaroo with 22g of protein and 1g of fat (and trace/negligible carbs) per 100g for less than 99 calories.
> Compare that to any plant protein, whether it's lentils, peas, beans, nuts, whatever. You get the protein, but it also comes with double-triple that in carbs or fat, hence it being a "pure" source of protein.
> If you need more protein, you eat more meat; less, less. If it were a plant source, you would have to compensate for the other macros (not that you ignore fat)
> 
> 
> When I say meat I mean a dead creature. Whether it's red, white, sea food, rodents or insects, it's all meat.
> I was mainly referring to cows, sheep, pigs and chickens.
> 
> 
> This is a good thing
> 
> 
> Can you please provide some decent evidence of this? I know epidemiological studies are suboptimal but the old links to cardiovascular disease have dispelled and I'm not aware of any good evidence at this stage.
> I have seen some fairly decent evidence for a link between meat intake and colorectal cancer, but no other types of cancer or diseases.
> Dietary cholesterol intake does not affect homeopathic cholesterol in average people. Saturated fat is not inherently bad for the heart and only impacts ones health negatively if the lifestyle (rest of diet, exercise) is unhealthy. You can eat all the saturated fat (and red meat) you want if you're healthy and your LDL won't suddenly spike up because of it.
> In fact, if we want to get into it, the three saturated fats that are capable of raising your LDL are lauric, myristic, and palmitic acids, not the rest of the "saturated fats"
> 
> 
> Please talk on what was incorrect, as you didn't actually mention anything other than cardiovascular disease which is unproven afaik. The amount of times I've heard people say "red meat is bad for the heart" feels unbelievable but that's literally what people thought only 30 years ago..




Well, you said that "meat is literally the healthiest food around" and I don't think you can really say that with much certainty. Thus I said "slightly incorrect" because I don't think you've proven that to the exclusion of all else. But please don't, it doesn't need to become meat vs not-meat. I don't give a shit if other people eat meat, its their lives and I don't consider them when I make my dietary choice. I do think that people should maake ethical food choices regardless of what they choose to eat. 

You are right though, there does seemt to be mixed ideas about whether meat eating does contribute to heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483430/ I'm not so sure that the idea has been dsproven though but I don't eat meat so I don't really care


----------



## rickolasnice

I respect those that are vegetarian / vegan.. And so want to join them..

Meat as part of your diet in it's own right is not unhealthy unless it is too much.. just like anything else.

But the way that livestock are treated from birth until death is nothing less than disgusting.. and the meat industry does more harm to the environment than ANYTHING else..

If you eat meat you should watch Earthlings - A documentary about the meat industry.. It's fucking nasty.

Saying that - I would have no problem hunting, killing and eating a wild animal or even raising and killing my own - kept happy of course (although I could imagine it being upsetting / tough when the time came), or freegenating (eating meat that has been thrown out from shops or your mates bacon sandwich he no longer wants)


----------



## Ninae

Most people need to supress those things to feel comfortable eating meat...they don't like to be reminded.


----------



## rickolasnice

-=SS=- said:


> Going vegetarian only makes my life more difficult whilst doing nothing to solve the real issue. Pissing into the wind is not a priority for me.



I understand and somewhat agree with what you're saying here but surely you don't apply this logic to everything you do..

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do."

"Be the change you want to see in the world"


----------



## Flickering

willow11 said:


> So, I thought in the midst of all our discussions on religion and spirituality that we don't always discuss ethics divorced from the divine.
> 
> I have been a vegetarian for about 15 years now (I am 32), and have adopted veganism over the last 2 years. I am actually starting to eat dairy and eggs again as I have lost too much weight recently and feel very run down, so I made an ethical choice on my own behalf. I hope to gain some weight and reintegrate veganism back into my life with more planning and forethought this time.
> 
> But anyway, whats you opinion on such practises? Is it futile, or does it have real-world effect? Is that even the point of an ethical lifestyle choice, or is it more symbolic? I can't see how my or my girlfriends veganism has saved many lives or had that much impact, but that isn't neccesarily why I do it. I partially subscirbe to the tenets of deep ecology which suggests that animals lives are as valuable as humans, and not only in regards to their utility. This is important I believe.
> 
> I wish to:
> -avoid causing suffering to animals. That's the main kindergarten reasoning. I empathise with and deeply respect animals, and wish no harm upon them.
> -reduce the impact of mass factory farming and livestock raising on the environment. This reason has become more and more prominent, and is overtaking the first reason I mentioned in terms of inspiration to continue this lifestyle.
> -avoid the personal suffering/toll inherent in causing pain and degradation to other lifeforms and the ecosystem they exist within. I think most people are aware of the sorrow of factory farming and mass slaughter of animals, and I think *turning the other cheek to this creates a cognitive dissonance, resulting in guilt and reactionary apathy. It is a negative thing, performing actions that cause suffering.*
> -Maintain healthy levels of 'wild' mass consumed animals; here I refer to the massively depleted fishing stocks worldwide. I don't think my dinner is important enough to potentially condemn a species to oblivion.
> -Health reasons. A diet low on red meat is thought to be more healthy in the long run, with vegetarians thought to live for several years longer then carnivores.



Bold mine. These (especially the part I bolded) are my reasons too. I was vegetarian for a couple of years, then decided I must be iron-deficient because I was getting too tired - then realised it was just depression. But by then I was comfortably back into the habit of eating meat. Thought now and then that I ought to stop again someday.

Recently (this week) I decided I was being weak-willed and that I ought to stick by my convictions. So I'm back to it.


----------



## swilow

^I've experienced that sort of lethargy, and I did find that taking an iron supplement helped. Perhaps try that? I would suggest liquid if you can stomach it as it seems to cause less constipation, but with my nervous tummy I find tablets are best  Also, get onto some protein shakes, that will also help with tiredness and recovery. It is essential that you eat as completely as possible, otherwise your health will suffer. When I was recovering from my addictions and injuries acquired during them, I decided to eat free range chicken for about 3 months; there is no point in taking a stand or trying to make something better if you doing so makes _you_ worse.

Good luck with it Flickering


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I've experienced that sort of lethargy, and I did find that taking an iron supplement helped. Perhaps try that? I would suggest liquid if you can stomach it as it seems to cause less constipation



Or, better yet, just eat a balanced diet with lots of iron-rich food.
Vegans have to take (some) supplements, but vegetarians don't.


----------



## One Thousand Words

If it is unethical and immoral to kill another animal, surely it is just as immoral to stand by while other animals kill each other? If it is our ethical duty to protect all life, why are we not concerned with the rest of the carnivore population? It is just as bad to be a witness to a crime as it is to be the perpetrator if you had the means to stop it. 

I have respect for all life in the universe, even plant life. The more botany knowledge evolves, the more we are beginning to recognise they are not simply a passive organism. The extensive root systems resemble the synaptic networks of neurones in a brain. We are now aware that plants will often communicate to other plants near by, warning of insect attacks. Genetically related plants will often recognise each other and adjust where they grow, while actively attempting to over grow unrelated neighbours. Of course this then leaves us with the dilemma of what the fuck can we eat if we suddenly accept plant life as an equal. Until we start extracting nutrients from the atmosphere and rock minerals we might be ethically fucked.

I am not American, but every year we celebrate a Thanksgiving with our children where we give thanks as appreciation to all animals that we sacrifice each year to survive. I see nothing wrong with eating animals provided you are respectful and acknowledge their lives. It is the way of the Universe for one life to be consumed so another can live. I see nothing unethical to be part of this cycle. I see no reason why parasitic worms and fungal infections being treated for survival should not be considered the same as a fish killed for sustenance.


----------



## Birc0014

trees scream when you cut them down....i find it helps to use 50cc or higher to drown it out


----------



## rickolasnice

One Thousand Words said:


> If it is unethical and immoral to kill another animal, surely it is just as immoral to stand by while other animals kill each other? If it is our ethical duty to protect all life, why are we not concerned with the rest of the carnivore population? It is just as bad to be a witness to a crime as it is to be the perpetrator if you had the means to stop it.
> 
> I have respect for all life in the universe, even plant life. The more botany knowledge evolves, the more we are beginning to recognise they are not simply a passive organism. The extensive root systems resemble the synaptic networks of neurones in a brain. We are now aware that plants will often communicate to other plants near by, warning of insect attacks. Genetically related plants will often recognise each other and adjust where they grow, while actively attempting to over grow unrelated neighbours. Of course this then leaves us with the dilemma of what the fuck can we eat if we suddenly accept plant life as an equal. Until we start extracting nutrients from the atmosphere and rock minerals we might be ethically fucked.
> 
> I am not American, but every year we celebrate a Thanksgiving with our children where we give thanks as appreciation to all animals that we sacrifice each year to survive. I see nothing wrong with eating animals provided you are respectful and acknowledge their lives. It is the way of the Universe for one life to be consumed so another can live. I see nothing unethical to be part of this cycle. I see no reason why parasitic worms and fungal infections being treated for survival should not be considered the same as a fish killed for sustenance.



I may be wrong but I don't think anyone said it is unethical to kill animals - just that the meat industry is unethical - and it really is.. 

Look up Earthlings (think it might be on youtube) to get a better understanding of why the meat we consume is unethical.


----------



## Mysterie

what unethical about eating eggs that are sourced from happy chickens? milk sourced from happy cows?

i still eat meat when it is around, but i want to reduce the amount i eat to being very little, because i prefer how my body feels when i eat very little meat.

i wouldn't mind being vegetarian but i am not educated enough on diet to be able to transition yet, and living at home means i feel like an ass when i turn down pasta sauce because there is meatball in it, or soup with beef/chicken stock.

i have a problem with vegans/vegetarians who are angry about people who eat meat, and they spread their hate/anger to the people around them. or turn it into a political ideology, i think life is so subjective, there isn't really a definitive answer as to whether its wrong to eat meat.


----------



## rickolasnice

Cows need to be constantly pregnant to produce milk.

But no there's nothing wrong with eating happy eggs or drinking happy milk.. nobody said there was 

Chances are though - If you got those products from a supermarket then they're not happy milk eggs.. Even if there is a pretty freerange logo on them.


----------



## Mysterie

well i would assume vegans think there is something wrong with it if they abstain from both of those things.

like if i had some chickens which i raised with love in my back yard, if i offered an omelette to a vegan they would decline.

is it a all or nothing thing, where it just makes things simpler if you say no to all of that product regardless of its origins.


----------



## rickolasnice

It obviously depends on the person..


----------



## Ninae

Mysterie said:


> i wouldn't mind being vegetarian but i am not educated enough on diet to be able to transition yet, and living at home means i feel like an ass when i turn down pasta sauce because there is meatball in it, or soup with beef/chicken stock.



I have lots of experience in preparing vegetarian food. You don't need to be deprived and it can also be much better than low-quality meat courses. You mostly need to add salt and fat, as that's what gives flavour to meat and what you crave from it, and some kind of flavour.

You usually need to use some dairy to flavour the food. Cheese, butter, milk, creme, sour cream. Pepper and things that give flavour like onions and peppers. There are many things you can make so you wouldn't miss meat.

- Nutroast
- Pasta or noodles without meat
- Pizza with vegetables
- Potato-dish without meat
- Hot or cold sandwich
- Rice-dish without meat
- Hot or cold salad
- Scrambled eggs with nuts and vegetables
- Grilled cheese as meat substitute
- Roasted walnuts and onions (cottage cheese) as meat substitute

You just need to prepare more for yourself as there's not so much to buy (you can always eat things like chips, deep-fried cheese, meatless pizza, etc.)

I will write down some good recipes when I have time.


----------



## Abject

Ninae said:


> You mostly need to add salt and fat, as that's what gives flavour to meat and what you crave from it



lol'd again
also you need salt and fat to funtion healthily/live so that's why you'd crave it when you're deficient

also eating animal product? eggs and dairy are somehow better than meat? where's the logic?


----------



## Ninae

I didn't say we don't, I said it's mostly the tastes we crave from meat, so as long as this is satisfied you don't feel deprived.

It's a lot harder to become vegan than vegetarian but becoming vegetarian is a good start. That is like saying "What is the point of not buying fur when you buy leather?" At least you help to reduce the killing and suffering of animals somehow. And putting down the meat industry would be a good start.


----------



## Abject

That's what I was laughing at, pal. Have you ever looked at the nutritional information of meats before? Or any other food you're mentioning? There's hardly any salt in meat, guy. You'd also be hard pressed to find a cut of meat with more fat than roasted walnuts or deep fried cheese..
The main thing is your idea of what constitutes the flavour of meat. The deliciousness of animal fat is stronger in fattier cuts of meat but that's not "the taste of meat" and salt is added to meat, just like pepper and other seasonings. Saying the taste of meat comes from salt and fat is like me saying the taste of salad comes from vinegar/the dressing and the water in the plant matter. Just drink diluted vinegar, that's the flavour you're missing!!
Can't touch on the fur/leather and vego/vegan thing, other than farming being the issue and not the killing itself imo.


----------



## Ninae

It's a good philosophy for someone to manage to stick to giving up meat as opposed to eating just bolied vegetables which most couldn't manage. It actually makes a huge difference in practice and is a key to being able to live off vegetarian cuisine. 

But if everyone gave up consuming animal products the industries would just collapse. The millions of vegetarians in the world means there is a need for less animals to be bred for slaughter. And the suffering of animals in the world and wanting to do something to reduce it isn't really something to laugh about. 

Anyway, I have no interest in arguing with people who hate vegetarians and feel the need to ridicule them without them having said anything to them. Yes, you must be superior as you choose not to live as a vegetarian, and clearly have the right to look down on anyone who does. Fine by me.


----------



## rickolasnice

He didn't ridicule vegetarians Ninae.. And he never said he hates them.

Seriously this warped perception you get of people who disagree with what you say is fckin mental.. You're accusing him of the same things you accuse me of doing.. all he done was point out the flaws in your claim.. Welcome to a discussion.


----------



## Ninae

I don't care, I was just pointing out his attitude. I've received so much abuse by now it hardly registers. I just took notice of you in particular as you're so relentless about it and tend to ruin threads (and don't start that argument again).

At least I can get over it and don't terrorise everyone who offends me on PM.


----------



## Ninae

Is there actually an ignore button for this?


----------



## murphythecat

this
everything is wrong about eating another being. everything about it is wrong. At least vegetable, tofu, stuff like that arent beings really attached to themselves. but animals are attached to their life just like us. killing them to eat them is sadly and logically very immoral





Ninae said:


> This is really a simple issue.
> 
> Imagine another higher evolved species came to our world. They would be significantly superior to us in terms of intelligence, culture, etc. and would equate us with animals they had the natural right to capture and exploit in any way that they wanted.
> 
> Only I doubt there would be anyone who saw "nothing spiritually wrong" with us being reduced to that or just accepted the survival-of-the-fittest regime. I would bet most would cry out "Where is God?" in that scenario (in fact, in situations like that people tend to blame God).
> 
> But there is no real difference to us and animals being treated that way (except in our minds). It's not like we matter more to God than animals. They're more like creatures placed in our care who we have failed.
> 
> Still, animals forgive us for this. They have never-ending forgiveness because they're in a way closer to the divine than we are (they also don't blame God which is another thing they have to their advantage).


----------



## rickolasnice

Care to elaborate?


----------



## murphythecat

well, you wouldnt find it fair to be captured and kill to feed someone else would you? you would want him to eat something other then yourself and would findit very cruel to be his meal...
your cousciousness is not very different then a animal consciousness. Just like you, the animal feel fear, pain, ect. killing them is immoral just like it would be immoral to kill you because you would suffer from it.


----------



## Ninae

Yea, but some compare trying to bring an end to something like that with "pissing in the wind".


----------



## murphythecat

yes, agreed.
I eat eggs and drink lots of milk in my coffee. eggs is one of my only protein as im a vegetarian. I eat also lots of nuts. I feel bad for the way the cows and chicken are treated to produce the milk and eggs.





rickolasnice said:


> Cows need to be constantly pregnant to produce milk.
> 
> But no there's nothing wrong with eating happy eggs or drinking happy milk.. nobody said there was
> 
> Chances are though - If you got those products from a supermarket then they're not happy milk eggs.. Even if there is a pretty freerange logo on them.


----------



## What 23

I survived eating almost nothing but hemp seed hearts for about two years. I'd occasionally eat other things, but they were mostly non animal. I did eat tuna occasionally, and chicken liver occasionally. But sometimes I went months with strictly hemp seed hearts. Not the most balanced diet, but I survived it. I am 6 feet tall and I was only about 120 lbs.

Before that, I was a vegetarian for about four or five years... But I ate cheese and drank milk, before I realized I was allergic to dairy. I actually got sick when I went full vegan. But I think that was just coincidence as I had another illness which really messed me up, and left me seemingly more sensitive to many more foods.

The hemp seed diet was due to having a hard time finding food that worked. I felt awesome eating it. I didn't get hungry. It is "high vibration" food. So, I just got tired of feeling ill, and decided to stick to what worked. Food allergies can make one terrified of food.

Finally, after awhile, I became so sensitive to the type of molds/fungus/bacteria that were sometimes with the seeds, and I had had diarrhea for 6 months straight, all liquid pretty much, I had go give up the seeds. I got some chicken. I felt a different vibration. Definitely not as clean, but it sustained me. I mix hemp seed oil with it, dousing it. 

Now I eat chicken all of the time. I don't feel at all "bad" about it. I know what it is to be on an edge when it comes to food, and I'm not going to sweat even eating a monkey if it comes down to it... Or even an enemy combatant, depending on the situation. Heh. 

I don't know. I've changed. In ways, on the way, I didn't like it. When I was vegan I was crazy. I felt bad wearing wool. I'd prefer to get wool ethically sourced, but I'm not going to stop wearing the socks my mom got me for Christmas when its 1 degree outside, because I feel bad. I honor the animal by using it.

And leather... Well, I know that given circumstances I may revert back to a more primitive style. And may fashion covering from animal hides. I'd honestly prefer it to synthetic. Though I'd prefer hemp fiber/linen, bamboo... But I'd do with what I could.

Honestly, ideally, I'd eat mainly fruit. I'm thinking. Fruits and veggies. Maybe some fish, though. I would like to be as natural as possible getting nutrients, and we need B12. Fish or Clams or something. I did eat a diet of mainly avocados and strawberries for awhile.

But yea. Rick is right. It is the industry that is sick.


----------



## murphythecat

well, yes the industry is sick. but killing a animal is sick in itself. especially when you can eat:
nuts, grains, seeds, soya, eggs for enough protein in your day.
you dont need to kill and eat animals and buying those food encourage the most cruel industry I can imagine. hell on earth.


----------



## Xorkoth

I simply do not believe that eating animals is immoral.  It's the way of nature... all animals eat other lifeforms to survive.  Are tigers immoral?  We evolved as omnivores and there is strong evidence to support that our discovery of cooking and eating meat directly led to our rapid brain evolution.  I eat meat and I do not feel bad about it.  I love and respect animals... loving animals is not mutually exclusive with eating them.  We're high up on the food chain, that's just a fact.  If an animal ate me, I wouldn't hate that animal.  It would just be the circle of life.  Why do you feel we are held to a different standard?  Killing an animal is not sick, when it's done for food.  Why would it be sick for a human to kill an animal for food, but not for an animal to do the same?

However, there most certainly IS something grossly immoral about the current state of the meat industry, which produces a truly monstrous level of suffering in the animals it uses to produce meat.  I buy organic meat whenever possible that was from animals who were not subjected to such things.  Not only is it healthier, but it's far kinder.  I've never hunted, but I decided a few days ago that this year I am going to try to get a deer.  A single deer would provide me with a huge amount of meat that I could store and use throughout the months following.  Likewise I am going to take a few fishing trips for the same reason.  I don't relish the idea of personally killing an animal but if I am going to eat meat I have to be willing to do it.  Hunting wild animals is the most responsible, respectful and least impactful way of eating meat because then you're truly just participating in the circle of life and you're causing no more suffering than, say, a mountain lion (or even less if you're a good shot).

Who's to say that plants don't suffer when you cut them down to eat them?  Life involves suffering.  In order for anything to live it has to consume something else living.

Part of the problem is that there are just too many humans.  That's why factory farming became an industry, to support the diets of too many people.  And then focus on profits caused it to become really disgusting.  I don't know what the answer is.  Probably for everyone to eat less meat, and for corporations to stop worshipping the dollar so much.


----------



## murphythecat

Tiger are only carnivore I think so they can only eat meat.

we have the responsability and ability to make the choice. so each time you buy meat, you encourage a immoral business.
you can very well survive without meat.

in a situation if you would have no choice and you eat only meat for your survival, the matter begins to change and we get into a controversial subject, but as it stands now, you could very well survive without having to kill animals, so then, its totally immoral to accept oneself to eat meat.
killing is immoral and very cruel. it shows total lack of compassion and empathy for other beings.
it is sick because you impose suffering on another being for your own and only benefit. its the total opposite of love and care and empathy.

its quite evident that plants are less attached to life then animals. it seems logic. I highly doubt a plant suffer as much as a animal when being killed. the connexion and the capacity to feel is much less developped in a plant. this is where science can clearly show that yes, maybe a plant suffer, but much less then a animal being killed.
but then, the best is to eat seeds and nuts, as you dont even have to kill anything.


----------



## Erikmen

murphythecat said:


> well, you wouldnt find it fair to be captured and kill to feed someone else would you? you would want him to eat something other then yourself and would findit very cruel to be his meal...
> your cousciousness is not very different then a animal consciousness. Just like you, the animal feel fear, pain, ect. killing them is immoral just like it would be immoral to kill you because you would suffer from it.



I believe that can be true to a certain extent. Most people do it unconscious as society does that every day. 
I find it hard to break the routine and feel week if I don´t eat meat at least 3 times a week.


----------



## murphythecat

well, for sure you need to compensate. but Ive given up meat for more then 2 year now without any problems.

I eat 3 eggs every day, lots of beans, lentils, oatmeal, potatoes, lots of veggies and fruits, nuts (mainly almonds), seeds, lot of tofu. I use all the spcecials I get, buy my tofu in big package, my almonds in stores where they sell wholesale, all my fruits in special, ect.
 and theres no trouble at all. if anything, im much healthier without meat due to how bad animals are fed ect.

But, that will not save your soul lol, but I feel much better about the fact that if everyone would do this, this carnage would stop.
wether we like it or not, we are all responsaible and if we all stopped to eat meat, that industry would die


----------



## Xorkoth

What about other omnivorous animals?  Are they immoral when they eat another animal, since they have the choice to eat plants?

Okay so buying meat encourages an immoral business... I agree in the case of factory farmed meat, as I said.  I don't really agree that buying meat from animals that were raised in happy conditions and not given chemicals/hormones supports anything immoral or unhealthy, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does too.  What about hunting then?  Or raising your own animals for food, who live peaceful and happy lives until they're killed much more quickly than they would be killed in the wild by a predator, and without the fear of being stalked and chased first?

I don't feel good if I don't eat meat sometimes.  I went vegetarian for about 6 months years back and went back to eating meat because I felt weak and sickly.  We have been eating meat as a species for a very long time, and as such we have evolved to work best when we include meat in our diet.  Different cultures/genetic chains of humans eat varying amounts of meat.  If you're descended from a people who have always eaten a lot of meat, chances are you won't feel good unless you eat meat sometimes.  If you're descended from a people who mostly ate plants, then vegetarianism may work much better for you.

I have respect for people who choose to cut out meat but I do not believe it is cruel or immoral to eat meat, only that it's cruel and immoral to support factory farming practices.  It's just the way nature works.  It would be nice if we lived in a universe where we didn't have to consume other beings, but that's not how it is.  I truly do wish I could feel good eating only plants but I gave it a try and it just doesn't work for me.  I'm not going to go through my life feeling sickly and weak.

Native north americans were/are a people with great respect for life and the earth, and they believed that you could kill an animal respectfully for food, use it well (not waste any of it) and maintain a good relationship with those animals and the earth.  I believe the same thing.  I haven't always done so but as I become more aware of the problems in the meat industry I do my best to minimize the harm I am causing by consuming meat.  We're animals and we participate in the food chain, it's just a fact of life.

I bet the average vegetarian produces more harm to the planet, due to the transportation costs required to transport food from around the world to provide a full range of nutrients, than your average meat-eater who responsibly hunts for food.


----------



## One Thousand Words

murphythecat said:


> its quite evident that plants are less attached to life then animals. it seems logic. I highly doubt a plant suffer as much as a animal when being killed. the connexion and the capacity to feel is much less developped in a plant. this is where science can clearly show that yes, maybe a plant suffer, but much less then a animal being killed.
> but then, the best is to eat seeds and nuts, as you dont even have to kill anything.


How can you say this? Most plants live for longer than animals, so one could argue that they have a lot more to lose. Just because a tree doesn't have the capacity to scream doesnt mean it is not aware that it is dying. Plant life release stress chemicals when it is sick, just as any animal does. The only reason you feel better eating plant life is because plants are usually more passive aggressive when you murder them.


----------



## swilow

Sorry for the long multi-quote....



One Thousand Words said:


> If it is unethical and immoral to kill another animal, surely it is just as immoral to stand by while other animals kill each other? If it is our ethical duty to protect all life, why are we not concerned with the rest of the carnivore population? It is just as bad to be a witness to a crime as it is to be the perpetrator if you had the means to stop it.



Yes, that could be argues, but for me personally- I am relatively content with being a vegan and have no desire to impose it on others. I think I would be arrogant if I assumed that anything beyond myself shares my values, extending to all life forms. I'm not willing to judge anyone else's behaviour in this regards because I am not convinced that what I'm doing is objectively right; its just the lifestyle that I am confortable with, that makes me feel the most complete and connected to the world. 

In fact, I am willing to go to some lengths to allow an animal to continue its natural predilection for killing other animals for food/life. I see humans as having stepped well beyond 'the natural world' and so can adopt any value system that suits. It is important to me to know that a great white is out there hunting a seal right now. It is important to me that all animals get a degree of self-determination. Humans too, obviously.

I like the rest of your post OTW, and think it sounds like you are raising a family with good inclusive repsectful aware principles  



Mysterie said:


> i have a problem with vegans/vegetarians who are angry about people who eat meat, and they spread their hate/anger to the people around them. or turn it into a political ideology, i think life is so subjective, there isn't really a definitive answer as to whether its wrong to eat meat.



I agree totally and dislike those sort of crusaders also. 

For me, I've certainly promoted vegetarianism to people who seemed to be lost and looking for a way to turn some realisations into action; its a simple thing that one can do, remove meat from the diet and see where that leads you. If it deepens your experience on earth why should it be denied?



rickolasnice said:


> He didn't ridicule vegetarians Ninae.. And he never said he hates them.



Yeah yeah, drop it dude  Its the tone Abject adopts, the haughty schoolmaster tone. Its hard not to get a bit shitty about really....




Ninae said:


> Is there actually an ignore button for this?



Yeah, click on the user name, go to View Profile- on this page, on the left is a column of options. Select Add to Ignore List.

Its a good function that I make use of too  





Xorkoth said:


> What about other omnivorous animals?  Are they immoral when they eat another animal, since they have the choice to eat plants?



No Xorky because an animal should not be expected to make a decision determined by human morality. That would be highly unethical IMO. 



> Okay so buying meat encourages an immoral business... I agree in the case of factory farmed meat, as I said.  I don't really agree that buying meat from animals that were raised in happy conditions and not given chemicals/hormones supports anything immoral or unhealthy, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does too.  What about hunting then?  Or raising your own animals for food, who live peaceful and happy lives until they're killed much more quickly than they would be killed in the wild by a predator, and without the fear of being stalked and chased first?



I could get behind this. I see some value in respectful killing of animals, with thanks given and respect paid. However, this is unfeasible for a lot of people, to get enough land to raise enough food to feed themselves and their animals. That's one reason why we have factory farms. 

I cannot be sure of the source of most food products, so I can't really make a truly ethical choice with what I know. 



> I don't feel good if I don't eat meat sometimes.  I went vegetarian for about 6 months years back and went back to eating meat because I felt weak and sickly.  We have been eating meat as a species for a very long time, and as such we have evolved to work best when we include meat in our diet.  Different cultures/genetic chains of humans eat varying amounts of meat.  If you're descended from a people who have always eaten a lot of meat, chances are you won't feel good unless you eat meat sometimes.  If you're descended from a people who mostly ate plants, then vegetarianism may work much better for you.



Yes, early humans did eat meat and their direct antecedents did also. But we certainly didn't evolve eating cows milk, chicken eggs, cow meat/fat, sheep, duck, etc. We've added those into our diet to replace things we no longer have access too. So it stands to reason that we can take that dietary replacement even further. Its certainly possible to be a vegetarian/vegan and eat healthy and completely. Its also certainly very easy to miss the mark ad eat poorly and suffer the results, which I unfortunately have...



> I bet the average vegetarian produces more harm to the planet, due to the transportation costs required to transport food from around the world to provide a full range of nutrients, than your average meat-eater who responsibly hunts for food.



Yeah, I highly doubt this TBH. And I think its a bit of a lame argument. I eat food from local producers. And I just don't believe their is "an average meat-eater who hunts for food". The vast majority of people these days do not hunt or grow their own food, so we are all reliant on transportation to some extent. But it is the period before transportation that can cause a lot of harm to the environment.

It doesn't need to a be a pointless duality here of meat eaters vs vegetarians. Its the innate human competiveness I guess, but its tiresome to the extreme. I'm not going to judge someone for living their life in their own way. I'm simply going to do the same


----------



## treezy z

Vegitarianism is for the weak. I'm a carnivore all day. Humans are omnivores. We are the kings of the jungle baby. I love animals but do not hold them in the same regards as humans, and me eating is more important than them living. Survival of the fit BIATCH!


----------



## murphythecat

and willow, thanks for answering exactly what I would have answered. I agree with everything you said.

logically plants  feel less pain then a animal because of a less developed brain-nervous system when killed because their nervous system is much less developed. 

I dont see how its a argument to legitimate one's bad action (killing a animal) because you see other animal do it. You, contrary to the other animals, have a choice and you can live well enough without consuming meat. We all are responsible of our actions and choices. Those are animals just like you who are raised and killed in inhuman ways. theres no good reason to support this and we all have a responsibility about it and when you buy the meat, you encourage the industry.. I dont care about people who eat meat, I dont hate any of you, but it seems that your excuses to find acceptable eating meat doesnt hold up morally.


One Thousand Words said:


> How can you say this? Most plants live for longer than animals, so one could argue that they have a lot more to lose. Just because a tree doesn't have the capacity to scream doesnt mean it is not aware that it is dying. Plant life release stress chemicals when it is sick, just as any animal does. The only reason you feel better eating plant life is because plants are usually more passive aggressive when you murder them.


----------



## One Thousand Words

It is generally accepted that a plants "brain" is its complex root system. While it might not be as efficient as our soggy neuron complex, it does control the plant system and also communicate with surrounding plants using chemicals, almost identical to our own brains.  The only difference is plants seem to be standing on their heads

This is not a new thought, Charles Darwin postulated such an idea 



> It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed, and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense organs, and directing the several movements.


----------



## murphythecat

sure, it sucks to have to kill plants to eat.
but how can anyone think that killing a plant is as worse as killing a animal is weird to me. it seems quite clear by their physionomy that they would suffer much less then a animal. also, a animal suffer all his life because how its treated in the farms, while plants simply grow and have all their nutriments needed then bam, we harvest them. its not like they have a life of misery with a lack of freedom ect.
ideally, we wouldnt have to kills plants to survive, but I have the feeling that its much less problematic morally to eat them 
like ayuhasca, mescaline ect showed me in my trip, it seems that they are more then happy to give their life to help us. some plants seems only there to help us to grow spiritually (like psychoactive plants) or to survive and give our needed nutriments.





One Thousand Words said:


> It is generally accepted that a plants "brain" is its complex root system. While it might not be as efficient as our soggy neuron complex, it does control the plant system and also communicate with surrounding plants using chemicals, almost identical to our own brains.  The only difference is plants seem to be standing on their heads
> 
> This is not a new thought, Charles Darwin postulated such an idea


----------



## One Thousand Words

So now the plants are communicating with you via psychoactive chemicals? 

Is suffering only quantifiable by the sound an organism makes when it dies? What about the suffering of the community of bacteria and fungus which lives in symbiotic harmony with a plant? It seems you are imparting human standards to life on a organism which has no way of expressing its views. In effect you are murdering the intellectually handicap of the ecosystem to satisfy your own selfish sustenance. 

I'd argue that animals too are here on this earth to help us grow


----------



## swilow

otw said:
			
		

> The only difference is plants seem to be standing on their heads



Another point of difference, they are also often green.


----------



## murphythecat

I use my logic and common sense to help me see if a action seems moral or not.
and yes, seeing blood, a animal who cry, who strugle, who would do anything in its power to try to survive seems to tell me that I shouldnt kill it.
between this and cutting a plant and often just taking the fruit of a tree seems far less problematic.


One Thousand Words said:


> So now the plants are communicating with you via psychoactive chemicals?
> 
> Is suffering only quantifiable by the sound an organism makes when it dies? What about the suffering of the community of bacteria and fungus which lives in symbiotic harmony with a plant? It seems you are imparting human standards to life on a organism which has no way of expressing its views. In effect you are murdering the intellectually handicap of the ecosystem to satisfy your own selfish sustenance.
> 
> I'd argue that animals too are here on this earth to help us grow


----------



## One Thousand Words

Lizards and frogs love the sun too


----------



## swilow

Yeah but have you ever seen a green cow? 



			
				murphy said:
			
		

> I dont care about people who eat meat, I dont hate any of you, but it seems that your excuses to find acceptable eating meat doesnt hold up morally.



But given the subjective nature of morality, can you really make this statement and have it mean anything? I find it a problem because morals are like opinions. Everyone has different ones.

I can't offer a good reason why I eat plants. Its ultimately that I don't see the harm in it in a broader way.


----------



## One Thousand Words

murphythecat said:


> I use my logic and common sense to help me see if a action seems moral or not.
> and yes, seeing blood, a animal who cry, who strugle, who would do anything in its power to try to survive seems to tell me that I shouldnt kill it.
> between this and cutting a plant and often just taking the fruit of a tree seems far less problematic.



Do not Mimosa pudica or touch me not plants pull away then you touch them? If you cut a trees bark it tries to heal itself with a callas. I don't see why picking on the physically and emotionally handicap plant world any less immoral. By your logic it is less evil to kill a small animal than a larger more aggressive animal, simply due to its level of response to your attack


----------



## murphythecat

willow11 said:


> Yeah but have you ever seen a green cow?
> 
> 
> 
> But given the subjective nature of morality, can you really make this statement and have it mean anything? I find it a problem because morals are like opinions. Everyone has different ones.
> 
> I can't offer a good reason why I eat plants. Its ultimately that I don't see the harm in it in a broader way.


moral isnt bound to opinion. I just cannot see any situation where I cannot see if the thing is wholesome or unwholesome.
eating a fruit isnt morally problematic at all, you never kill the plants. when you begin to cut plants, now already I could see a problem.
but compared to killing a animal, I can clearly see that its much more unwholesome to kill a pig then take a carrot.


----------



## Xorkoth

Morality is a human concept, and is subjective.  Different people do indeed have different morals.  I disagree with the morals of a lot of people I meet, but they believe in them.  Animals, if they have a moral code at all, have a different moral code than we do.  Cat, for example, torture small animals to death over a period of hours.  It creeps me out but I don't think my cats are evil.  Morality is not universal.

Again, I agree that supporting factory farming and immoral meat practices is immoral.  Just not the act of killing an animal to eat it in a respectful way, separated from the corrupted industry we currently have.  Ie, not causing it any more pain than is necessary, only doing it minimally, and not wasting anything.

Willow: I only used the "average hunter" thing as a conversation point.  I realize very few people actually do this these days, I'm just saying, if someone did, I believe they'd be having a lower impact on the earth than someone who receives their plants via shipping from various places.  They'd be fulfilling the same role as a mountain lion or a wolf when they shoot a deer to feed themselves for a while.  There are places in the US where the deer have no natural predators left because we killed them all or removed them due to habitat loss or encroachment, and if humans didn't hunt the deer, they'd overpopulate and destabilize the local ecosystem further - we have become the deer's remaining natural predator.  Not hunting them to thin them out could be seen as immoral too; we destabilized the ecosystem, so we have to do what we can to keep it in balance, and if we don't, we're causing further harm to a great multitude of creatures (if the ecosystem falls apart).

It's a complex issue and I think we can all agree that factory farming is a horrendous thing that needs to stop.  But when you buy meat that isn't factory farmed, or hunt, you're not supporting factory farming.  And it's not a black and white issue.


----------



## murphythecat

no, I can see a problem with killing a tree indeed. but taking some of its bark, if you select carefully which to take to not kill the whole tree, I find it morally correct if you take it for the intent to grow spiritually. it seems clear that killing a animal is worse then a plants. I just gave a example when I showed the reaction of a animal being killed. even killing the most calm animal is imo immoral. killing is killing and its wrong. taken a life away from anything is immoral and unwholesome imo. 
I do not point fingers at all, I also am to blame as I still buy eggs, milk and tons of vegetables ect. 





One Thousand Words said:


> Do not Mimosa pudica or touch me not plants pull away then you touch them? If you cut a trees bark it tries to heal itself with a callas. I don't see why picking on the physically and emotionally handicap plant world any less immoral. By your logic it is less evil to kill a small animal than a larger more aggressive animal, simply due to its level of response to your attack


----------



## One Thousand Words

What about evil animals? Would you object to killing morally abject creatures for the common good of the planet? Is it better to kill the hitler pig than the Jesus pig?

My home is unique that there are no native mammals other than bats. All mammals which live here are introduced, and as a result have a serious impact on the ecosystem. One of the biggest pests are possums, initially introduced for fur, but now responsible for destroying native fauna and flora at such a rate that even environmental groups support their irradication. 

Surely as the apex predator, and moral adjudicator of the land, it is our ethical responsibility to kill these creatures?


----------



## murphythecat

one shouldnt take any action against another being. 

this is a very interesting question and we enter a grey zone. ideally, you should, for yourself, only care about your spiritual growth and your purification. if you would do this, you would let nature go its course.


but in this matter, the fact that humans most likely created the problem by killing the balance of the habitats which create imbalance in the ecosystem, then maybe its okay to try to save the ecosystem by eradicating possums.
what do you think?


----------



## murphythecat

very interesting.
but yeah, I think moral is universal. wholesome action can be seen everywhere in all animals just like bad ations in all animals and I think that you can distinguish any action by its intention.
if you kill possums with the intention to save many many other creatures, it seems the intention better then to kill a pig because you like bacons.
I do not believe and it seems illogical to me to think that moral is a human concept only.
its quite clear that its seems to be a universal concept.
but, some action from animal that may seem bad may be misjudged by us. that why ideally, you wouldnt have any judgments in life and just concentrate on your well being.
clearly, a cat who make suffer his prey is very wrong
but a mother cat who kills one of his baby because that baby has deformity and would suffer all his life because of that deformity may very well be morally acceptable.





Xorkoth said:


> Morality is a human concept, and is subjective.  Different people do indeed have different morals.  I disagree with the morals of a lot of people I meet, but they believe in them.  Animals, if they have a moral code at all, have a different moral code than we do.  Cat, for example, torture small animals to death over a period of hours.  It creeps me out but I don't think my cats are evil.  Morality is not universal.
> 
> Again, I agree that supporting factory farming and immoral meat practices is immoral.  Just not the act of killing an animal to eat it in a respectful way, separated from the corrupted industry we currently have.  Ie, not causing it any more pain than is necessary, only doing it minimally, and not wasting anything.
> 
> Willow: I only used the "average hunter" thing as a conversation point.  I realize very few people actually do this these days, I'm just saying, if someone did, I believe they'd be having a lower impact on the earth than someone who receives their plants via shipping from various places.  They'd be fulfilling the same role as a mountain lion or a wolf when they shoot a deer to feed themselves for a while.  There are places in the US where the deer have no natural predators left because we killed them all or removed them due to habitat loss or encroachment, and if humans didn't hunt the deer, they'd overpopulate and destabilize the local ecosystem further - we have become the deer's remaining natural predator.  Not hunting them to thin them out could be seen as immoral too; we destabilized the ecosystem, so we have to do what we can to keep it in balance, and if we don't, we're causing further harm to a great multitude of creatures (if the ecosystem falls apart).
> 
> It's a complex issue and I think we can all agree that factory farming is a horrendous thing that needs to stop.  But when you buy meat that isn't factory farmed, or hunt, you're not supporting factory farming.  And it's not a black and white issue.


----------



## treezy z

murphythecat said:


> one shouldnt take any action against another being.



it's a cold world, kill or be killed.

to make an example of how impossible it is not to take action against other people: every time you buy chinese made goods you're hurting poor americans by driving wages down.

also "one shouldnt take any action against another being." is a statement. you left out the important part, the why.

so tell me, why not?


----------



## swilow

murphy said:
			
		

> but yeah, I think moral is universal. wholesome action can be seen everywhere in all animals just like bad ations in all animals and I think that you can distinguish any action by its intention.



If morality is universal, then how can we know that our animal brothers understand it in the same that we do? They have no way of telling us and we have no way of hearing them.


----------



## murphythecat

willow11 said:


> If morality is universal, then how can we know that our animal brothers understand it in the same that we do? They have no way of telling us and we have no way of hearing them.


its all about the intentions behind there action.
some animals have to kill to survive. surely it differs from us. if they wouldnt kill, they would suffer long time before dying in terrible pain, so for them, killing is different.
but us, we could survive in ways much more pure like nuts, fruits, which doest hurts as much nature and others then by killing and eating meat. since we have the choice, the intention behind eating bacon is greed and attachments to the taste of bacon with the knowledge that it has to create suffering in pigs. clearly then, you can see that its more immoral then accepting to limit ones intake of meat because it creates less suffering.
but a animal has no choice, he need to eat and often, they only get as little as they need. we humans buy way to much, eat way to much, ect.. so its really better to not judge others actions. much purer as indeed, it becomes complicated to try to judge the animals actions. but there only three choice: good, neutral or unwholesome actions and intentions.


----------



## One Thousand Words

What about the parasitic worm who requires the pig to be eaten to continue its life cycle? Are we not condemning another organism to death by not eating pork?


----------



## murphythecat

ideally, one should only care about his own actions in his mind in the present moment. we are, in this moment, likely entertaining not only wholesome thoughts and the point is to try to never let a unwholesome thoughts enter one's mind.

judging the life of a worm isnt really beneficial for my spiritual grow and its not like the worm can decide to begcome a vegan, he would die too fast.
but us, we can choose.


One Thousand Words said:


> What about the parasitic worm who requires the pig to be eaten to continue its life cycle? Are we not condemning another organism to death by not eating pork?


----------



## swilow

Its unfortunate that we have to try and classify lifeforms according to some nebulous scale of 'value' or 'worthiness'. It doesn't really work, so we have to try and make arbitrary classifications and distinctions. Hence the parasitic brain worm is of less importance to me then the integrity (such as it is) of my brain.


----------



## swilow

Xorkoth said:


> Morality is a human concept, and is subjective.  Different people do indeed have different morals.  I disagree with the morals of a lot of people I meet, but they believe in them.  Animals, if they have a moral code at all, have a different moral code than we do.  Cat, for example, torture small animals to death over a period of hours.  It creeps me out but I don't think my cats are evil.  Morality is not universal.
> 
> Again, I agree that supporting factory farming and immoral meat practices is immoral.  Just not the act of killing an animal to eat it in a respectful way, separated from the corrupted industry we currently have.  Ie, not causing it any more pain than is necessary, only doing it minimally, and not wasting anything.
> 
> Willow: I only used the "average hunter" thing as a conversation point.  I realize very few people actually do this these days, I'm just saying, if someone did, I believe they'd be having a lower impact on the earth than someone who receives their plants via shipping from various places.  They'd be fulfilling the same role as a mountain lion or a wolf when they shoot a deer to feed themselves for a while.  There are places in the US where the deer have no natural predators left because we killed them all or removed them due to habitat loss or encroachment, and if humans didn't hunt the deer, they'd overpopulate and destabilize the local ecosystem further - we have become the deer's remaining natural predator.  Not hunting them to thin them out could be seen as immoral too; we destabilized the ecosystem, so we have to do what we can to keep it in balance, and if we don't, we're causing further harm to a great multitude of creatures (if the ecosystem falls apart).
> 
> It's a complex issue and I think we can all agree that factory farming is a horrendous thing that needs to stop.  But when you buy meat that isn't factory farmed, or hunt, you're not supporting factory farming.  And it's not a black and white issue.



As ever, a thought out and deeply compassionate reflection from you Eric


----------



## Ninae

They look like they know what is coming.


----------



## treezy z

murphythecat said:


> ideally, one should only care about his own actions in his mind in the present moment. we are, in this moment, likely entertaining not only wholesome thoughts and the point is to try to never let a unwholesome thoughts enter one's mind.



That sounds like a lot of stress. I'm thinking unwholesome thoughts right now, not too worried about it.


----------



## murphythecat

after some practice, you will be able to maintain mostly positive thoughts. its not very stressful I can say but ideally, its much better to not think and stay mindful only of the body. mindfulness of the thoughts is the beginning and is indeed a bit more stressful then going right to mindfulness of the body. but you have to go from replacing the unwholesome thoughts with wholesome thoughts before having any chance on keeping your mindfulness on the body ime.

so the chain is knowing your thoughts: if its positive go directly to mindfulness of the body as its much calmer.
but if you have unwholesome thoughts, replace with wholesome thoughts and then go back to mindfulness of the body.

there's many different method one can choose to replace a unwholesome thoughts, but its necessary as one realize very fast that any unwholesome thoughts creates suffering in ones mind, thats its not necessary and that one can easily think about something wholesome rather then make one think about unwholesome things





treezy z said:


> That sounds like a lot of stress. I'm thinking unwholesome thoughts right now, not too worried about it.


----------



## Erikmen

They look like they know what is coming.
Lol..


----------



## swilow

They just look like gentle animals being gentle, to me at least  



One Thousand Words said:


> What about the parasitic worm who requires the pig to be eaten to continue its life cycle? Are we not condemning another organism to death by not eating pork?



I get that people wonder how far down this 'moral stance' goes; does it apply to plants, to insects, to bacteria and so on... But the opposite is not often asked; if it is, in fact, okay to kill and eat animals why is it not okay to kill and eat humans? Because I see a distinction between life-forms (as everyone else does), I think it is 'less' immoral to kill bacteria or plants as opposed to animals. I think that someone who murders a human child has done more wrong then someone who kills an animal. This is an outlook shared almost universally, that there are qualitative differences between the value of lifeforms, and that some must then be somehow less the others... I think its arbitrary, but as the apex predator, my whims are more meaningful then most.


----------



## ForEverAfter

+1

Well said.


----------



## Abject

willow11 said:


> Yeah yeah, drop it dude  Its the tone Abject adopts, the haughty schoolmaster tone. Its hard not to get a bit shitty about really....



My tone is only like that towards Ninae, so I don't know what you're getting shitty about. Ninae has been acting high and mighty, and not knowing the simple macronutriotional composition of the foods they're referencing is literally comical. How dare I make fun of someones arrogance and ignorance??
If people weren't spreading nutritional misinformation (something I've corrected you on already) I wouldn't come off as a "haughty schoolmaster"
The only reason I come off as haughty is because Ninae is so lowly, the schoolmaster really is an overstatement.
If someone was getting annoyed at x telling uneducated people 2+2=5 and they corrected them to 2+2=4, would that be a schoolmaster? Because that's essentially what's happening when meat is called salty.

Anyway, I've had enough of this thread. Busty is the only one really trying to keep this shit logical, and he'll lose interest (you might mistake this as haughty) before too long.
Enjoy your discussion guys, remember to google scientific claims.


----------



## swilow

^I think there is plenty of logic in this thread to be honest, but its not really a discussion where an absolute stance is helpful. Since when have ethics and morality been logical anyway? 

Anyway, I did sound a bit more offhand then intended, but your tone was a bit arrogant. You seem to have good stuff to contribute though so whatever. I ultimately don't really mind if anyone loses interest in this topic so do what you will


----------



## Ninae

Abject said:


> Ninae has been acting high and mighty



That could also be said about those who only show contempt for someone who tries to reduce the suffering of animals. Anyone who's interested in doing something to relieve the suffering in this world should be acknowledged for it. There's no part of science that can change that.


----------



## Erikmen

willow11 said:


> They just look like gentle animals being gentle, to me at least
> 
> 
> 
> I get that people wonder how far down this 'moral stance' goes; does it apply to plants, to insects, to bacteria and so on... But the opposite is not often asked; if it is, in fact, okay to kill and eat animals why is it not okay to kill and eat humans? Because I see a distinction between life-forms (as everyone else does), I think it is 'less' immoral to kill bacteria or plants as opposed to animals. I think that someone who murders a human child has done more wrong then someone who kills an animal. This is an outlook shared almost universally, that there are qualitative differences between the value of lifeforms, and that some must then be somehow less the others... I think its arbitrary, but as the apex predator, my whims are more meaningful then most.



Interesting point of view.  Common sense should apply, and we can´t be radical, although we can certainly be logic.
 What you mentioned above makes sense, the comparison with human makes us think about it.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Ninae said:
			
		

> That could also be said about those who only show contempt for someone who tries to reduce the suffering of animals. Anyone who's interested in doing something to relieve the suffering in this world should be acknowledged for it. There's no part of science that can change that.



Moral elitism / superiority shouldn't be promoted / advocated, in any way.
It is okay to be vegan or vegetarian, but isn't okay to impose that on anyone else.
There is no "better" choice. It depends on the person.
You cannot reduce the suffering.
You only alleviate your guilt.

...

The argument that meat is healthier is flawed.
You can have a perfectly healthy vegetarian diet.
There are different benefits, depending on which you chose.
Neither is objectively "healthier".

The argument someone proposed of nutritional content per mass is limited.
That is not the best formula to judge long-term health benefits.
I'm not arguing either way.

...

The entire question can be simplified to this (IMO):
If you're going to stress about eating animal products, it's best to be vegetarian / vegan.
If not, it doesn't make any fucking difference... There's no point stressing about it.
This is all God's plan.


----------



## Ninae

ForEverAfter said:


> Moral elitism / superiority shouldn't be promoted / advocated, in any way.



No, but in this case it's even worse when it's reversed on you. I don't attack people for not being vegetarian, as far as I'm concerned that's their choice. But I'm not going to let anyone pretend it makes them better than me just because they can hit me in the head with a nutrition guide.


----------



## Erikmen

Actually I don´t think we need to label everything all the time. 
Everyone should eat whatever it feels healthier. Besides, I believe in the old common sense that a little of everything can be quite effective. 
It´s difficult to raise a child being vegetarian. They need protein and they will get it from fish, chicken or eggs.
I love all animals but have my own instincts. 
This thread IMO is becoming too much philosophical. If you have kids you need to be pragmatic and make sure they grow up accordingly. 
In my building there is only one yellow kid. His mother is totally vegetarian. I won´t judge her, but I have pit for her child. Everyone does.


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> Moral elitism / superiority shouldn't be promoted / advocated, in any way.
> It is okay to be vegan or vegetarian, but isn't okay to impose that on anyone else.
> There is no "better" choice. It depends on the person.
> You cannot reduce the suffering.
> You only alleviate your guilt.
> 
> ...
> 
> The argument that meat is healthier is flawed.
> You can have a perfectly healthy vegetarian diet.
> There are different benefits, depending on which you chose.
> Neither is objectively "healthier".
> 
> The argument someone proposed of nutritional content per mass is limited.
> That is not the best formula to judge long-term health benefits.
> I'm not arguing either way.
> 
> ...
> 
> The entire question can be simplified to this (IMO):
> If you're going to stress about eating animal products, it's best to be vegetarian / vegan.
> If not, it doesn't make any fucking difference... There's no point stressing about it.
> This is all God's plan.



yes it makes a difference. when you eat meat and buy meat, you encourage the carnage and the industry. if everyone were to stop buying meat, no more animal would be killed, ect. so yes, it makes a huge difference wether people decide to eat meat or not.

its not about allievate guilt either, its about realizing your infulence and your role in this world and that every choice you make has an impact on the world. believe me, I dont eat meat to not feel guilty, I dont eat meat because each time I eat meat, I know a animal that didnt want to die got killed and I cannot accept that.


----------



## murphythecat

Erikmen said:


> Actually I don´t think we need to label everything all the time.
> Everyone should eat whatever it feels healthier. Besides, I believe in the old common sense that a little of everything can be quite effective.
> It´s difficult to raise a child being vegetarian. They need protein and they will get it from fish, chicken or eggs.
> I love all animals but have my own instincts.
> This thread IMO is becoming too much philosophical. If you have kids you need to be pragmatic and make sure they grow up accordingly.
> In my building there is only one yellow kid. His mother is totally vegetarian. I won´t judge her, but I have pit for her child. Everyone does.



you can very well live and be healthy and have all the needed protein with eggs, nuts, soya, seeds ect. no need to kill a animal to feed your child.

now, its quite clear that a lot of vegetarian doesnt eat well and dont eat enough protein ect but thats there own fault.


----------



## Ninae

You can eat superfoods. Bee products like propolis and royal jelly, etc. They can give you all the nutrition you need and are much higher in nutrition than the cheap forms of meat people mostly eat.


----------



## Xorkoth

willow11 said:


> As ever, a thought out and deeply compassionate reflection from you Eric



Thank you my friend. 



murphythecat said:


> after some practice, you will be able to maintain mostly positive thoughts. its not very stressful I can say but ideally, its much better to not think and stay mindful only of the body. mindfulness of the thoughts is the beginning and is indeed a bit more stressful then going right to mindfulness of the body. but you have to go from replacing the unwholesome thoughts with wholesome thoughts before having any chance on keeping your mindfulness on the body ime.
> 
> so the chain is knowing your thoughts: if its positive go directly to mindfulness of the body as its much calmer.
> but if you have unwholesome thoughts, replace with wholesome thoughts and then go back to mindfulness of the body.
> 
> there's many different method one can choose to replace a unwholesome thoughts, but its necessary as one realize very fast that any unwholesome thoughts creates suffering in ones mind, thats its not necessary and that one can easily think about something wholesome rather then make one think about unwholesome things



I agree with this... with practice you can shift your pattern of thoughts to mostly positive and loving, and your life will benefit from it - the world will seem brighter and positivity will reign in your mind.  For me, however, responsible eating of meat does not create negative thought patterns, but rather a love and appreciation for the animal that gave it's life for me after living a peaceful life that ended in a brief moment of pain, and a source of nutrition that aids my own life's quality.  In fact a domesticated cow, for example, living on a free-range pasture farm, may have less suffering in total than an animal living in the wild because it is protected and fed until the end.  Our domesticated varieties of animals are no longer equipped to survive in the wild anyway, we've changed that.

Also if you can buy the scenario of eradicating possums to save an ecosystem, can you not also buy the idea of hunting deer to produce the same result (the example I gave on the last page)?  I have a serious problem with trophy hunters but hunters who are just trying to eat and are also performing a needed function as the remaining predator of a species... the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of harm to nature.  Something needs to kill animals or else they become too successful and destabilize ecosystems.  Nature developed in this way and if we unbalance that, it's our responsibility to bring it back into balance as much as possible.  It would have been wonderful if we hadn't killed or displaced all the natural predators of deer in some areas (the midwest US for example), but sadly, it's already been done.


----------



## murphythecat

about the balance in the ecosystem, this is a very interesting topic and I cannot answer with certainty as its very complexe. too complex to answer easily.

but about killing life, that I can always go back to the immorality, the injustice, the lack of compassion and empathy that brings someone to kill a animal. no animal wants to feed you, they want to live. and we kill them against their will. it is cruel, immoral and unwholesome.
yes, the animal had a nice life but he still wanted to live, was mainly happy, and in his path just like you and me. for the cow, tis not the end of the world to die, just like its not the end of the world when ill die, the problem is the one who kill that cow and the ones who buy and therefore encourage the killing out of greed and sensual desire and attachment to the good taste of meat.


----------



## murphythecat

guyanapunch said:


> These are not sources of protein.



ive given many example of good source of protein.
and as if people really care about their diet when they eat meat. they eat meat because everyone do it, because we love hamburgers and steak and its tasty.
if it tasted like shit, you wouldnt buy meat no matter how much protein it gives you.


----------



## Xorkoth

murphythecat said:


> ive given many example of good source of protein.
> and as if people really care about their diet when they eat meat. they eat meat because everyone do it, because we love hamburgers and steak and its tasty.
> if it tasted like shit, you wouldnt buy meat no matter how much protein it gives you.



It's a bit silly to say that anyone who eats meat does not care about their diet.  As I've said before, I tried going without meat for a good 6 months, after researching good combinations for adequate protein, and I went back to eating meat because I feel much better when I do.  It would be great if I could feel good without eating meat sometimes but it does not seem that I can.  So I don't feel bad about fulfilling my role as a member of an apex predator species, because I also don't support factory farming.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I dont eat meat to not feel guilty, I dont eat meat because each time I eat meat, I know a animal that didnt want to die got killed and I cannot accept that.



Same thing.



> if everyone were to stop buying meat, no more animal would be killed, ect. so yes, it makes a huge difference wether people decide to eat meat or not.



But everyone is not going to stop buying meat...
Your efforts fall flat, practically / globally.
You are not saving a single life.

You should take your own advice re: Buddhism, and stop thinking.
The world will change when it changes. You can't change it.


----------



## swilow

^I think guilt is retrospective though, but I think the phrasing of the statement implies the future existence of guilt and the desire to avoid that. 

For me, the kindergarten reason as I called it- the disliking of being responsible for violence to another life form- is the most emotionally compelling reason. Logically, it makes sense to try and avoid guilt if one anticipates an act will induce it. Empathy makes violence difficult and painful to oneself and, as social creatures, we have pretty powerful empathy system. I think the 'selfish' motivation behind this reason makes it 'kindergarten'.

But the act of hypocrisy itself is what I wish to be distant from because I do not like or respect the use of violence by humans upon the defenseless whilst we simultaneously describe ourselves as the ultimate outcome of evolution (don't we realise how much we malign that entire concept?). I deeply value the idea of 'innocence' and of valuelessness, a quality I see in animals (by which I mean 'innocent of the murk of morality, prior to the advent of good and evil, without the knowledge of even knowledge etc'). I think that if we wish to believe that we are the things we tell ourselves, we should protect the weak and cherish the simple instead of crushing it. We are of nature but we have simply walked out of it through our behaviour, and so I think we have no choice but to live up to our potential and follow through the choices we have made. The world is to be  nurtured and valued, not just according to its utility to humanity but for its inherent value to itself, out of respect for its potential. To that end, I would like to preserve as much life to have its one single brief chance at it as possible. It makes me feel that I might be doing the actual right thing for me 

I don't think we are evil or sinful, just lost. Maybe we will always be, but I'm frankly scared to give up trying to find something... 

Ha 



Erikmen said:


> Actually I don´t think we need to label everything all the time.
> Everyone should eat whatever it feels healthier. Besides, I believe in the old common sense that a little of everything can be quite effective.
> It´s difficult to raise a child being vegetarian. They need protein and they will get it from fish, chicken or eggs.
> I love all animals but have my own instincts.
> This thread IMO is becoming too much philosophical. If you have kids you need to be pragmatic and make sure they grow up accordingly.
> In my building there is only one yellow kid. His mother is totally vegetarian. I won´t judge her, but I have pit for her child. Everyone does.



A good post as you raised the idea of having vegan/vegetarian children, which I don't think was brought up prior to this. 

I think you are talking about the 2 sides to this debate; the ethical side and the nutritional side. As Foreverafter said, either diet can be healthy or unhealthy. Its utterly up to the individual to use their brains. In that sense, the topic becomes purely philosphical as no objective difference can be discerned in terms of nutrition. And given that this is the philosophy forum, and the not the health section, of course the topic is going to become philosophical- and to repeat Foreveraf

I'm not sure what you mean by yellow kids either. But I don't plan to force my choices upon my future children whatever colour they are :D As I have said, this is a personal choice for me, not one that I can make for anyone else.


----------



## Ninae

The great spiritual teachers have always taught at the beginning when humanity lived in a Garden of Eden state neither humans or animals ate each other. Everyone would eat of what was growing on the Earth. It was first after a fall in consciousness the species started turning against each other.

I've always taken that for granted and don't see anything normal in the way we live now even if it feels normal and society is constructed that way. Why wouldn't a paradisical state also mean paradise for animals? The Earth doesn't just belong to us.

Jesus said "One day the lion will lie down with the lamb" but humanity has to change before the animal kingdom can change.


----------



## Erikmen

murphythecat said:


> you can very well live and be healthy and have all the needed protein with eggs, nuts, soya, seeds ect. no need to kill a animal to feed your child.
> 
> now, its quite clear that a lot of vegetarian doesnt eat well and dont eat enough protein ect but thats there own fault.



I agree with you, with almost everything you´ve mentioned.
 The challenge of having a vegetarian style for children is due to their strong resistance in eating beans a lot more than they should to compensate the need of protein, for example. 
I know that we shouldn´t go after killing animals to get our satisfaction done. What I am saying is that is just too difficult to feed children, even harder being vegetarian. 
Besides, most doctors insist they need meat in their early ages to acquire lots of iron + protein without having to eat that much..


----------



## Ninae

Erikmen said:


> The challenge of having a vegetarian style for children is due to their strong resistance



This doesn't have to be a problem if you learn to prepare it right. Well-made vegetarian food is really much better than typical meals made from processd meat and many with very little meat in them anyway.

If you want to make sure they get enough protein you should first focus on dairy and make sure they get enough milk, cottage cheese (great source of animo acids), and eggs which are a prefect protein. You can sweeten the cottage cheese with some powdered sugar and mix it with fruit to make it more edible and fry the eggs with vegetables and roasted nuts like walnuts or almonds (also a source of proten) which they would love.

You can also give them vegetable-based protein from legumes, nuts, and seeds by grinding them up and mixing them into a salad so they're not so noticable or you can cook them and add them to spicy dishes. This works very well and they shouldn't like it any less than other foods.

The problem for most is they have no idea how to eat without meat when that's what they've always done. When me and my sisters stopped eating meat when we were teenagers for the first year we didn't know what to eat apart from nutroast, chili noodles, and parmesan pasta. It's just a different way of cooking that you need to learn and then you don't need to be deprived.

You can for instance boil chopped broccoli in cream with salt and pepper and it's better than most meat (certainly much better than burgers and hotdogs and more nutritious too).


----------



## Erikmen

Thank you so much for this Ninae (tusen tack!) 
Definitely a great advice.


----------



## Ninae

I will try to write down some dinner recipes that children would definitely love and wouldn't miss any meat.


----------



## Erikmen

That would be very nice, indeed!


----------



## Ninae

These are some of the most satisfying vegetarian meals I know how to make. They're very nutritious compared to what most people eat (meat or not). And show you can still have a versatile cuisine. 


*Cold Cheese and Tomato Sandwich
*
⦁	Fresh bread
⦁	Butter
⦁	Ruccola salad
⦁	Cheese slices
⦁	Tomato slices
⦁	Mayonnaise
⦁	Chopped leeks or onions
⦁	Salt and pepper

Spread the butter over the bread, add ruccola salad, cheese, tomatoes, salt and pepper, mayonnaise, onions.

*Hot Grilled Cheese Sandwich
*
⦁	Some fresh bread
⦁	Grillable cheese (Houloumi, etc.)
⦁	Tomatoes
⦁	Onions 
⦁	Ruccola salad
⦁	Spicy butter
⦁	Salt and pepper

Bake the bread until warm. Grill the cheese, tomatoes, and onion. Spread spicy butter over the bread, add ruccola salad, add the grilled cheese, tomatoes, and onions. Salt and pepper.

*Vegetarian Pizza
*
⦁	One store-bought roll of pizza dough
⦁	Tomato sauce (I usually mix tomato puree and ketchup, salt and pepper, but you can also crush fresh tomatos)
⦁	Grated cheese
⦁	I tin of corn (or fresh corn)
⦁	2 small tins of pinnaple bits
⦁	2/3 chopped pepper
⦁	Some chopped baby tomatos
⦁	One chopped red onion

Bake for 15-20 minutes on 200 degrees

*Cold Salad
*
⦁	Ruccola salad
⦁	Grated cheese (Mozzarella)
⦁	Chopped tomatoes
⦁	Chopped leek
⦁	A mix of mayonnaise + creme fraiche for dressing
⦁	Salt and pepper

Blend well and use the ingredients at room temperature.

*Hot Salad
*
⦁	Grilled cheese
⦁	Chopped walnuts (or almonds)
⦁	Ruccola salad
⦁	Chopped tomatoes
⦁	Chopped onions
⦁	Finely chopped pepper
⦁	Spiced butter
⦁	Salt and pepper

Grill the cheese, roast the walnuts, fry the onion and peppers, blend with ruccola salad, add melted butter, salt and pepper. 

*Scrambled eggs/Omelette (for one)
*
⦁	3 eggs
⦁	Chopped walnuts or ground almonds
⦁	Chopped onions or leeks
⦁	Finely chopped paprika
⦁	Tomatoes
⦁	Some chopped ruccola 
⦁	Butter 
⦁	Cream
⦁	Cheese

Put some butter in the pan. Roast the walnust, onion, and paprika. Fry the tomatos until soft. Put the eggs into a mixer and add some cream and cheese (not much). Add some chopped ruccola and salt and pepper. Stir fry in a pan until it looks done. 

*Pasta with White Sauce and Broccoli
*
⦁	Fresh pasta
⦁	Boil broccoli in cream until tender
⦁	Fried onion
⦁	Add some cheese
⦁	Salt and pepper

*Creamy Pasta with Tomatos
*
⦁	Fresh pasta
⦁	Fried chopped onion
⦁	Fried finely chopped peppers
⦁	Fry tomatos into a sauce
⦁	Add some creme fraiche
⦁	Add some cheese
⦁	Salt and pepper

*Spicy Tomato Pasta 
*
⦁	Fresh pasta 
⦁	Fried onions
⦁	Fried peppers and chilis
⦁	Fry tomatos into a sauce
⦁	Add tomato puree
⦁	Add spiced butter to give it flavour
⦁	Paprika spice, salt, and pepper

*Spicy Noodles
*
Same as above, just add fresh noodles, more chili and spices.

*Carrot Pie
*
⦁     Pie crust
⦁	Make a pie crust from flour, cottage cheese, water, and salt
⦁	Press it into a pie forn
⦁	Pre-bake for 15 minutes

*Filling:*

⦁	Boil one bag of peeled carrots and mash
⦁	Mix with one box creme fraiche
⦁	Salt and pepper
⦁	(some onion or leeks can be added)
⦁	Grated cheese

Fill the pie crust with the filling and let it bake for half an hour. 

*Nutroast
*
⦁	I box walnuts chopped
⦁	One box cottage cheese
⦁	One chopped onion
⦁	3 handfuls cornflakes
⦁	Some melted butter
⦁	Salt and pepper

Mix until a soft paste and roast in an oven for 45 minutes on 180 degrees.

*Mashed potatoes for the nutroast
*
⦁	Boil and mash the potatos
⦁	Add some butter, milk, and creme fraiche
⦁	Salt and pepper

*Spagetti Bolognese
*
⦁	Nutroast mince
⦁	Fresh spagetti
⦁	Tomatos
⦁	Tomate pure
⦁	Onions
⦁	Butter

Fry the onions. Heat the tomatos into a sauce with tomatopure. Put the nutroast through a blender and mix with the pasta and tomato sauce.

*Potato and Tomato Dish
*
⦁	Boiled and sliced potatoes
⦁	Tomatos 
⦁	Tomato pure
⦁	Chopped onion
⦁	Finely chopped paprika
⦁	Milk
⦁	Creme fraiche
⦁	Grated cheese
⦁	Salt and pepper

Take an oven pan and put in the sliced potatoes, add the tomatos, tomato puree, onions, paprika, milk and creme fraiche, salt and pepper, and put grated cheese on top. Bake for half an hour. 

*Nutroast Mince and Potato Dish
*
⦁	Nutroast mince
⦁	Potatos
⦁	Tomatos
⦁	Tomato pure
⦁	Milk
⦁	Creme fraiche
⦁	Grated cheese
⦁	Salt and pepper

Make potato mash from boiled potatoes, milk, creme fraiche, salt and pepper. Put the nutroast through a blender and add boiled tomatos and tomato pure. Layer it with the potatos at the bottom, the nutroast mince in the middle, and cheese on top. Bake for 15 minutes. 

*Potato Dish with Broccoli
*
⦁	Boiled and sliced potatoes
⦁	Chopped broccoli
⦁	Chopped onion
⦁	Milk
⦁	Creme fraiche
⦁	Grated cheese
⦁	Salt and pepper

Take an oven pan and put in the sliced potatoes, add the tomatos, onions, peppers, with milk and creme fraiche, salt and pepper, and put grated cheese on top. Bake for half an hour. 

*Corncake*

⦁	Take 3 tins of corn or scrape the kernels off three fresh cubs
⦁	Add some cornflour
⦁	Add some normal flour
⦁	Add some milk
⦁	Add some spiced butter
⦁	Add salt and pepper

Run the corn kernels through a food processor to make a paste. Add the flour and cornflour, milk and butter, salt and pepper.

Can be served with mashed potatoes.


This is the kind of food childen will love. It's without meat but very nutritious and better than what people mostly eat. There is some fat added for taste, but that is necessary for flavour, and children need some fat in thier diet. Most diets contain much more fat anyway, and of the unhealthy kind.


----------



## murphythecat

willow11 said:


> ^I think guilt is retrospective though, but I think the phrasing of the statement implies the future existence of guilt and the desire to avoid that.
> 
> For me, the kindergarten reason as I called it- the disliking of being responsible for violence to another life form- is the most emotionally compelling reason. Logically, it makes sense to try and avoid guilt if one anticipates an act will induce it. Empathy makes violence difficult and painful to oneself and, as social creatures, we have pretty powerful empathy system. I think the 'selfish' motivation behind this reason makes it 'kindergarten'.
> 
> But the act of hypocrisy itself is what I wish to be distant from because I do not like or respect the use of violence by humans upon the defenseless whilst we simultaneously describe ourselves as the ultimate outcome of evolution (don't we realise how much we malign that entire concept?). I deeply value the idea of 'innocence' and of valuelessness, a quality I see in animals (by which I mean 'innocent of the murk of morality, prior to the advent of good and evil, without the knowledge of even knowledge etc'). I think that if we wish to believe that we are the things we tell ourselves, we should protect the weak and cherish the simple instead of crushing it. We are of nature but we have simply walked out of it through our behaviour, and so I think we have no choice but to live up to our potential and follow through the choices we have made. The world is to be  nurtured and valued, not just according to its utility to humanity but for its inherent value to itself, out of respect for its potential. To that end, I would like to preserve as much life to have its one single brief chance at it as possible. It makes me feel that I might be doing the actual right thing for me
> 
> I don't think we are evil or sinful, just lost. Maybe we will always be, but I'm frankly scared to give up trying to find something...
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> 
> A good post as you raised the idea of having vegan/vegetarian children, which I don't think was brought up prior to this.
> 
> I think you are talking about the 2 sides to this debate; the ethical side and the nutritional side. As Foreverafter said, either diet can be healthy or unhealthy. Its utterly up to the individual to use their brains. In that sense, the topic becomes purely philosphical as no objective difference can be discerned in terms of nutrition. And given that this is the philosophy forum, and the not the health section, of course the topic is going to become philosophical- and to repeat Foreveraf
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by yellow kids either. But I don't plan to force my choices upon my future children whatever colour they are :D As I have said, this is a personal choice for me, not one that I can make for anyone else.



wow, that was beautiful. I couldnt have said it better obviously as english is my second language. wonderful


----------



## Ninae

A homeless kitten wandered into a zoo in St. Petersburg, Russia  and became instant friends with a lynx. 






Even the most predatory animals have a loving side to them. Animals are superior in love in a way.


----------



## Erikmen

ninae said:


> a homeless kitten wandered into a zoo in st. Petersburg, russia  and became instant friends with a lynx.
> 
> Even the most predatory animals have a loving side to them. Animals are superior in love in a way.



lol


----------



## Xorkoth

That's adorable.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:
			
		

> Animals are superior in love in a way.



Perhaps an animals love is less conditional or more altruistic then humans, with all our requirements and desires and expectations...


----------



## Ninae

To be realistic vegetarian food is better than what most people eat, at least if someone knows how to cook, because it's home-made and prepared from high-quality raw-materials.

Most people just eat cheap processed and frozen food most of the time. It's not like they eat steak and high-quality meat all the time so there are no advantages to it. No one are going to miss burgers, sausages, and shitty frozen pizzas. 

You don't really need to give up anything in the way of health or taste, but you need to give up something in the way of habit and convenience, and live with the social stigma of not being like everyone else.


----------



## Xorkoth

I barely ever eat processed food... mostly I eat vegetables and fruits and grains that I cook myself.  I often add some chicken but I also often don't.  I cook for myself once or twice a day and I generally make 4 or 5 servings at once for my dinner meal and eat it for 2 days.  I love burgers but I make my own with organic free-range beef.  The thought of processed or frozen food does not appetize me anymore.  I also cut out refined sugar... I used to love candy and crap but now I don't miss it at all, after a period of missing it really badly.  Cooking is an awesome pasttime and I've gotten really good at it.


----------



## Ninae

That's great. I have to make my own food. But most people mostly eat ready-meals or de-frostable foods.


----------



## Erikmen

willow11 said:


> Perhaps an animals love is less conditional or more altruistic then humans, with all our requirements and desires and expectations...



Indeed, altruistic like no humans could ever be imo of course.


----------



## murphythecat

definitely. I cook every day and everything I do is home made. I eat eggs every morning with beans in maple sirop, or oatmeal, or pancakes.
I eat a salad every day made with cucumber, carotts, cabbage, tomatoes and romaines. I eat lots of fruits, lots of earthy soup like pea soup, black eye pea stews, minestrones. Lots of ratatouille, tofu, nuts, seeds. Also make often indian lentills. Cheese is also eaten everyday and milk. I find most meat, when I go to friends ect quite untasty and I dont really like the taste anymore. besides a good burger, but Ive learn to cook so good that I still am very eating what I like and love, just no meat anymore





Ninae said:


> To be realistic vegetarian food is better than what most people eat, at least if someone knows how to cook, because it's home-made and prepared from high-quality raw-materials.
> 
> Most people just eat cheap processed and frozen food most of the time. It's not like they eat steak and high-quality meat all the time so there are no advantages to it. No one are going to miss burgers, sausages, and shitty frozen pizzas.
> 
> You don't really need to give up anything in the way of health or taste, but you need to give up something in the way of habit and convenience, and live with the social stigma of not being like everyone else.



the secret for a good pasta sauce? lots and lots of olive oil and salt. The salt is necessary and the oil also, you need put a lot of it. one can of tomato paste for one can of whole tomatoes. My girlfriend is italien, got the recipe from teh family lol


----------



## Xorkoth

When I make pasta sauce I start with 3 or 4 pounds of fresh tomatoes, and simmer them with carrots, celery, onions, salt, pepper, and often various peppers, for several hours until it turns into sauce.  Much better than using canned tomato paste, though more expensive too (unless you grow your own).  I usually use butter instead of olive oil but just some oil or other is necessary for sure.

My favorite recipe right now is the stuff I mentioned above plus 1 habanero, 1 serrano, 1 jalapeno, and 1 banana pepper.  Remove the seeds from the hot peppers unless you like it REALLY hot.  Then when it's down to a good sauce consistency, partially smash it up so it's more uniform, and add some heavy whipping cream to taste.  I also add chicken usually but that's totally optional.  Then eat over noodles or rice.  So good!  Enough salt is really important in cooking, for example my mom has this idea that salt is bad for you so she doesn't use any and everything she makes is bland.  Salt is important for bringing flavors together and bringing out the flavors in almost anything, plus it's essential to our survival (just as long as you don't eat too much - processed foods usually contain loads of salt).



Ninae said:


> That's great. I have to make my own food. But most people mostly eat ready-meals or de-frostable foods.



Yeah they do, it's sad.  Most of my friends only eat fast food or frozen/boxed stuff.  Sometimes I'll bring over real food and cook it at their houses and they're always like holy shit, this is amazing.

My yard is too shady (I live in the forest) to grow vegetables, though some herbs I can grow... I just got in on a community garden at my friend's place so this year I am going to grow a large percentage of my vegetables, I'm so excited!


----------



## Ninae

Xorkoth said:


> Yeah they do, it's sad.  Most of my friends only eat fast food or frozen/boxed stuff.



Yes, which makes most people's nutrition argument something that works more in theory than in practice, and it taste pretty shitty compared to home-made food, too, even if it's without meat.

I like to use a combination of fresh tomatos and tomato paste but I only heat them long enough to make them soft. I also like to eat food with as much LIFE in it as possible. This is also important as it gives you more vitality and heightens your mood. But there's not so much life in most meat as most can't afford to eat raw steak, etc. much of the time.

Vitality is also viewed as a form of intoxicant in spiritual literature. "It's easy for kids to be happy because they have so much vitality" etc. Fresh fruit juice definitely makes me feel noticably better.


----------



## Xorkoth

Yeah fruit juice is one of the greatest things ever.  If I have it I go through it really fast, I should buy it more often but I wish it was cheaper.  In this community garden I mentioned there are a bunch of mature fruit trees - apple, pear, and another one I can't remember right now.  Maybe I can make my own fruit juice this summer/fall.

Pre-packaged food definitely doesn't taste anywhere near as good as homemade, fresh food.  I've spent the last 6 years cooking a lot (more and more, this year I only cook my own food finally), and I've gotten really good at cooking as a result.  The food I make is better than food I can get even at 95% of restaurants I've been to (with a few exceptions for really exceptional places).  It's so fun and rewarding to make your own food.  I'm dating a girl who makes her own almond milk and a bunch of other things too so I get access to a bunch of stuff I had never thought to make before.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, it's more like:

1) Home-made food
2) Catered/Restaurant food
3) Store-bought/Junk food


----------



## Xorkoth

Yeah I live in a community that is huge on fresh, local food... any restaurant in the downtown here that wants to stay open sources its food from local farms, including the meat (for example there's a wonderful farm with all organic and free-range animals just down the road from me that a lot of places - and myself - get meat from).  The food here is incredible.  So I guess I'm spoiled.  Even so I like my food better than almost all of them.  There's this French place that just knocks my socks off though.


----------



## murphythecat

lol, this will be totally OT, but you dont need to simmer your pasta sauce for more then 30 minutes. after 30 minutes, all the acidity contained in the tomatoes are evaporated.
italian trick is all . it seems the traiditon is lots of olive oil, little oregano, a oignons, tomato paste and tomatoe. at least in my girlfriend family. amazing recipe!

yeah, pre packaged food is garbage. honestly, i find it sad what is being offered to us in the super market. the lobby of food is a terrible thing and why dont we see lentils, barley, quinoa in pre made food is weird to me.


----------



## Ninae

I like the acidity. It tastes more fresh and alive. Over-boiled tastes more dead. I prefer butter to most oils too (most oils are hydogenated).


----------



## murphythecat

Ninae said:


> I like the acidity. It tastes more fresh and alive. Over-boiled tastes more dead. I prefer butter to most oils too (most oils are hydogenated).



Tomato sauce needs good olive oil, not better.

olive oil is much more healthy then butter anyway

lol, this conversation is getting deeply OT


----------



## Ninae

Yes, but it's funny how everyone who doesn't know how to cook and mostly eat crap either way has gone silent.


----------



## Xorkoth

murphythecat said:


> lol, this will be totally OT, but you dont need to simmer your pasta sauce for more then 30 minutes. after 30 minutes, all the acidity contained in the tomatoes are evaporated.
> italian trick is all . it seems the traiditon is lots of olive oil, little oregano, a oignons, tomato paste and tomatoe. at least in my girlfriend family. amazing recipe!



I've tried it all ways, I like my way the best personally.  After 30 minutes it's still way too liquidy for me, I guess if you use tomato paste that would solve it but I would prefer not to use canned processed tomato product (which tomato paste is), but only fresh tomatoes.

I also like it better with butter but I love butter, what can I say?


----------



## Ninae

I just cut them into pieces and fry them until they start to melt. You don't really need to make a sauce because they give off as much flavour that way. Adding some tomato paste just gives a stronger taste that you can't really get from fresh tomatos. 

I also always fry with some kind of onion or I find it tastes too bland. But you practically need onion to give vegetarian food taste (not garlic).


----------



## One Thousand Words

An interesting side note is the fact that the flesh of animals who are stressed before slaughter is tougher and less sought after than those of animals which live a stress free life and are killed swiftly. It is in the farmers best interest to ensure their animals are happy right up until the time of death if they want to ensure their product is of the best quality.


----------



## Xorkoth

Yeah onion is one of the most important flavors on the planet, it's SO GOOD.  And amazing for you too.  I used to use a lot more garlic than onion but now I usually just use onion... if I add garlic it's as an extra ingredient, but onion is a core part of so many flavors.  I use it for almost everything.


----------



## Xorkoth

One Thousand Words said:


> An interesting side note is the fact that the flesh of animals who are stressed before slaughter is tougher and less sought after than those of animals which live a stress free life and are killed swiftly. It is in the farmers best interest to ensure their animals are happy right up until the time of death if they want to ensure their product is of the best quality.



Unfortunately they don't care about quality beyond that it doesn't break any laws... they know most people will buy the cheapest thing.


----------



## Ninae

Seasalt also makes a MAJOR difference to the flavour of a meal. I can't imagine cooking with common salt, ugh. 

Animals also release fear-hormones when they are slaughtered which are highly toxic to ingest but we don't hear so much about that. Though animals in the wild know this. It's one of the reasons they like to play with their prey before they kill it, like a cat with a mouse, to exhaust the fear-hormone toxins.


----------



## specialrelativity

lit-era-ture? Literature?


----------



## murphythecat

its important to say that theres really different grade in terms of tomatoes in cans as well as tomato paste. We go to a italian shop where they carry like dozens of different brand and some are definitely better then other, like worlds of different in terms of taste
but tomato paste really changethe consistency of the sauce.

an yes, onions is basically used in every of my meals. just so good! 





Xorkoth said:


> I've tried it all ways, I like my way the best personally.  After 30 minutes it's still way too liquidy for me, I guess if you use tomato paste that would solve it but I would prefer not to use canned processed tomato product (which tomato paste is), but only fresh tomatoes.
> 
> I also like it better with butter but I love butter, what can I say?


but seriously, a tomato sauce with butter? Get the fuck outta here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXfmfj4z3Zc


----------



## Ninae

Several. But it goes without saying they release fear-hormones and they're not particularly healthy. Imagine if someone was holding a knife up to your throat.


----------



## Xorkoth

Plus the lifelong stress hormones of factory farmed animals.  Nasty.  It seems logical to me that it wouldn't be good to ingest those.

Yeah man, I happen to like it better with butter.   I don't really cook in Italian-style or any style, it's a mix of influences plus my own touch.  Try my pasta sauce and see if you don't like it.  I dare ya.   I can make it without chicken for you.


----------



## Ninae

Ok, but I nearly always add sour cream, it just gives it more flavour. Cream really adds flavour to meat-less meals. Grilled cheese is great as a meat-substitute too.


----------



## Xorkoth

Yeah sour cream is great too.  I use heavy whipping cream usually but sour cream is a good idea, never tried it in a sauce actually.


----------



## Ninae

Well, I use it as it makes a thicker sauce and it also has a sharper taste. Normal cream is more sweet and mellow. If I can be bothered I like to chop some walnuts and roast them with onions as it creates a mince-meaty taste and makes it more like a meat-dish. 

Walnuts and grilled cheese are the only meat substitutes I really use (apart from cheese). Soya subsitutes are pretty useless as they're devoid of flavour and I think they're quite toxic and not very healthy anyway.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Xorkoth said:


> Plus the lifelong stress hormones of factory farmed animals.  Nasty.  It seems logical to me that it wouldn't be good to ingest those.
> 
> Yeah man, I happen to like it better with butter.   I don't really cook in Italian-style or any style, it's a mix of influences plus my own touch.  Try my pasta sauce and see if you don't like it.  I dare ya.   I can make it without chicken for you.



Don't fucking pander to the vegos Xorkoth, they can fucking pick the chicken out


----------



## Ninae

One Thousand Words said:


> Don't fucking pander to the vegos Xorkoth, they can fucking pick the chicken out



Again striving for the highest common denominator.


----------



## swilow

He's fucking with you i think.

Thread has evolved interestingly


----------



## Ninae

Well, I know that. I was talking about the way he was doing it. The thread has now turned into the spoiled housewives channel.


----------



## sekio

Still more provable than most stuff in P&S.

I award thee the honorary title of Sauceror?

Also, the seasalt thing has me piqued: I can't taste the difference between normal ol' salt and most seasalt. What kind of salt are you using?
Black salt is some interesting stuff, if you've ever used it. I don't know where to use such a sulphurous seasoning though.'

While we are all being food snobs, I love garlic so much I will just refuse to cook with any of the imported Chinese shit. It's flavorless and... well, the Chinese lack a good food safety record 8) Buy local! Not only is the local garlic much tastier, it's bigger too.


----------



## murphythecat

what? tofu is amazing for you





Ninae said:


> Well, I use it as it makes a thicker sauce and it also has a sharper taste. Normal cream is more sweet and mellow. If I can be bothered I like to chop some walnuts and roast them with onions as it creates a mince-meaty taste and makes it more like a meat-dish.
> 
> Walnuts and grilled cheese are the only meat substitutes I really use (apart from cheese). Soya subsitutes are pretty useless as they're devoid of flavour and I think they're quite toxic and not very healthy anyway.


----------



## Ninae

Thanks. No, it has more flavour, and is also healthier for you. You will notice professional chefs always point out they use sea salt.

It just makes a big difference. I can't imagine vegetarian food with normal salt. Although powdered sea salt is easier to use than whole crystals.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> what? tofu is amazing for you



Why use Tofu when you can use grillable cheese? It tastes like old, condensed tap water.


----------



## ForEverAfter

The dairy industry is arguably worse than the meat industry.
Cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, so that they continue to lactate.
Their calves are removed from them and slaughtered for veal.

If people are vegetarian for ethical reasons, I don't understand why/how they are not vegan.
The two industries (dairy/meat) work together.


----------



## Erikmen

That´s true about the industry. But cheese is so much in our society that most people just don´t associate..


----------



## Birc0014




----------



## Ninae

It's a start. Getting rid of half of it doesn't make the part that's gotten rid of worthless, it makes a significant difference. Besides, murdering animals and eating their flesh is a bit different, and we could humanly consume dairy in more limited amounts.

It's just a circular argument that works as an excuse. There's no point in stopping meat if you don't stop dairy, and vica versa, or there's no point in you stopping eating meat because if won't change anything. Well, it's like everything else, if everyone thinks like that they won't change anything, but if everyone thinks they can be one of many to make a difference, they can.

I don't understand the logic in saying it makes no difference being a vegetarian when there are millons and millions vegetarians in the world and if they weren't the demand for meat would clearly be higher. Of course it makes no difference to those who are determined to consume meat but we make a real difference together. 

It's the same as saying it makes no difference what you do the the environment because you're only one person. Many persons together is what makes the environment what it is. 

It's what makes the world what it is.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Who murders their meat? I only eat euthanized steaks


----------



## murphythecat

because tofu is a really good and cheap source of protein. I make incredible recipe using tofu like stews, general tao sauce with fried tofu, ect. 





Ninae said:


> Why use Tofu when you can use grillable cheese? It tastes like old, condensed tap water.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> It's a start. Getting rid of half of it doesn't make the part that's gotten rid of worthless, it makes a significant difference. Besides, murdering animals and eating their flesh is a bit different, and we could humanly consume dairy in more limited amounts.



Animals are bred for slaughter, so they wouldn't be alive if they weren't going to be eaten.
The same applies to animals that are made to constantly give birth and have their children stolen.
I'm not using this as an excuse to do neither. I genuinely think vegetarians should be vegans.
I don't understand, ethically, how it can be justified otherwise.

Is raising and slaughtering animals any better/worse than raising mother animals and slaughtering their offspring, then slaughtering the mothers later?
There is very little difference, as far as I can see. (Unless you simply want there to be a difference.)


----------



## ForEverAfter

> because tofu is a really good and cheap source of protein.



Tofu tastes like shit and it's bad for you.

http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/soys-negative-effects


----------



## Ninae

ForEverAfter said:


> Animals are bred for slaughter, so they wouldn't be alive if they weren't going to be eaten.
> The same applies to animals that are made to constantly give birth and have their children stolen.
> I'm not using this as an excuse to do neither. I genuinely think vegetarians should be vegans.
> I don't understand, ethically, how it can be justified otherwise.
> 
> Is raising and slaughtering animals any better/worse than raising mother animals and slaughtering their offspring, then slaughtering the mothers later?
> There is very little difference, as far as I can see. (Unless you simply want there to be a difference.)



1. They shouldn't be bred for slaugher at all.
2. Dairy could be produced in limited amounts from free-range animals.
3. Like I said, it's a start, and most need to eat dairy for a transition period or they find it too hard. 
4. Also, I don't see how getting rid of half the problem is invalidated by not getting rid of the other half (unless you simply want to see it that way). In most fields, like if we cleared up 50% of pollution, it would be seen as a spectacular achievement.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> because tofu is a really good and cheap source of protein. I make incredible recipe using tofu like stews, general tao sauce with fried tofu, ect.



Soya products don't agree with my system and many nutritionists say it's unhealthy. 

Like, soya hotdogs don't taste that much different from regular hotdogs, but if I eat more than one or two I get the urge to throw it all up.


----------



## Birc0014

veal is delicious, in fact all baby animals taste better, im pretty sure if i was a cannibal i would only eat babies...


----------



## Ninae

If all women could do what they liked I'm pretty sure one would cut off your dick.


----------



## Birc0014

im just being real, who wants to eat people anyways? but if i had to oh yeah it would be babies no contest, bonus points if they were grown in a lab instead of a womb so it would be ethical and whatnot


----------



## Ninae

The way your imagination goes is a bit disturbing.


----------



## murphythecat

I agree, but you go too far
its not the same. beef, lamb, pork simply wouldnt get slaughtered as we have no use for them and the beef industry is the largest and cause terrible repercussion to the planet
but yeah, milk and eggs is produced in terrible conditions and I will likely one day remove it from my diet.

damn! I didnt knew bout tofu. I eat tofu every week, this is very useful thx
it seems studies shows its not very good for us
http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/article/tofu-what-does-science-say


ForEverAfter said:


> Animals are bred for slaughter, so they wouldn't be alive if they weren't going to be eaten.
> The same applies to animals that are made to constantly give birth and have their children stolen.
> I'm not using this as an excuse to do neither. I genuinely think vegetarians should be vegans.
> I don't understand, ethically, how it can be justified otherwise.
> 
> Is raising and slaughtering animals any better/worse than raising mother animals and slaughtering their offspring, then slaughtering the mothers later?
> There is very little difference, as far as I can see. (Unless you simply want there to be a difference.)


----------



## Birc0014

same as soy it makes you grow titties and joing oprahs book club


----------



## Birc0014

ninae may i humbly suggest

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...mberships-for-my-cult?p=12883714#post12883714


----------



## Ninae

Stop dragging up old threads to prove a point. It doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion and if you can think of nothing else to say don't say anything. I'm not going to look at posts I've made over a 5-year timespan in various kinds of mental state.


----------



## Erikmen

ninae said:


> if all women could do what they liked i'm pretty sure one would cut off your dick.



lol..


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yeah, murphy, you shouldn't be eating soy regularly (if at all).



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> 2. Dairy could be produced in limited amounts from free-range animals.



Produced for the masses, or produced for farmers and their families?
I'm not sure you've really thought this through.
Who gets the "limited amounts"?
And what happens to the calves needed to cause the cows to lactate?



> 3. Like I said, it's a start, and most need to eat dairy for a transition period or they find it too hard.



Fair enough. As long as it's a start.



> 4. Also, I don't see how getting rid of half the problem is invalidated by not getting rid of the other half (unless you simply want to see it that way). In most fields, like if we cleared up 50% of pollution, it would be seen as a spectacular achievement.



I'm not trying to invalidate anything.
I'm just saying...

Dairy is just as bad as meat.


----------



## Birc0014

problem is cheese is so delicious no one wants to live without it...i say free cheese for all and fuck the cows! not literally, unless your into that sort of thing in which case, all will be permitted


----------



## Birc0014

Ninae said:


> Stop dragging up old threads to prove a point. It doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion and if you can think of nothing else to say don't say anything. I'm not going to look at posts I've made over a 5-year timespan in various kinds of mental state.



um its only a couple weeks old, we could really use your perspective, smoky joined and got instant virgin mary status...we can cook something up for you as well


----------



## Erikmen

Birc0014 said:


> problem is cheese is so delicious no one wants to live without it...i say free cheese for all and fuck the cows! not literally, unless your into that sort of thing in which case, all will be permitted



I agree with you that cheese is very good and in regards to cow, I think it´s made from their milk. It´s not like you are killing them for cheese.
I think a bit of everything is pure common sense. If one starts thinking too much where it´s all coming from you may start developing some sort of OCD relating to food. It´s only a figure of speech not real OCD, but you get the point.

Talking about meat in general is fine by me.  I agree with most of it. But going too much further does not seem to be natural IMO neither healthy. But that´s me.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> It´s not like you are killing them for cheese.



You're killing their children and their life is, probably, hell.


----------



## swilow

Birc0014 said:


> problem is cheese is so delicious no one wants to live without it...i say free cheese for all and fuck the cows! not literally, unless your into that sort of thing in which case, all.will be permitted



Shit man, foreverafter was right!


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yeah, I told you.


----------



## swilow

I stand humbled.

Must admit, I actually admire really bad jokes in some way...:D


----------



## Birc0014

join the cult


----------



## Xorkoth

What really needs to happen is that the industry for both dairy and meat needs to be totally reworked.  Rather than factory farming, animals could be raised free-range in a fairly natural way, and as they become pregnant, we could gather their milk for dairy, rather than keeping them constantly pregnant.  And the young would grow up to become adults and do the same thing, rather than be killed.

Of course this would require that everyone be quite moderate in their consumption, which seems an insurmountable dream these days.The original reason for factory farming was efficiency and production... there are so many people in the world, producing enough food is a challenge.


----------



## Abject

Dairy cows (nor any other mammals) don't need to be continuously preggers to produce milk. After a female has birthed, she will produce milk for as long as u milk her (ur human mother included) it's supply and demand. Eventually the body starts to slow down production, but females only stop producing milk once u stop milking them. If this happens, giving birth again will start the production of milk again.
Dairy cows may be impregnated multiple times but that's *not* because it's necessary to be recently pregnant in order to milk.

Also can u back up/provide literature on overpopulation and feeding people being a challenge cause we have the means/land, technology, water, refrigerators, whatever.
I mean just because heaps of people are currently malnourished and starving to death doesn't mean we're actually unable to feed them, it's just not profitable (the reason any company ever exists, food included) and I see absolutely no reason we couldn't feed twice as many people (which won't take long at the rate humans breed) twice as much meat as we currently eat (that's 400% more farming!!!) but if you've got something to show me otherwise I'd love to see it.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Dairy cows (nor any other mammals) don't need to be continuously preggers to produce milk



Confirmed...
(I stand corrected.)


----------



## Journyman16

It ain't Vegans and Vegetarians we need to be concerned about... or at least not only them... Apparently ANYONE wanting to eat healthy is now considered to be sick.

*Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder*


> _“Orthorexia nervosa is a label designated to those who are concerned about eating healthy. Characterized by disordered eating fueled by a desire for “clean” or “healthy” foods, those diagnosed with the condition are overly pre-occupied with the nutritional makeup of what they eat” _
> 
> In short, if you turn your back on low quality, corporate food containing known cancer causing toxic additives and a rich history of dishonesty rooted in a continuous “profits over people” modus operandi, then you may suffer from a mental illness. The cherry on top is that if you have the pseudo-science labeled disorder of orthorexia nervosa, you will be prescribed known toxic, pharmaceutical drugs from some of the same conglomerate corporations that you are trying to avoid by eating healthy in the first place.


From: http://naturalsociety.com/officials-declare-eating-healthy-mental-disorder/#ixzz3SH4ZBhWi

Apparently soon we will have Respira Nervosa, the sickness that is wanting to breathe actual air - they will release breathing masks that cure that need once and for all by restricting access of all air to the nose and mouth. :D


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> Confirmed...
> (I stand corrected.)



I didn't think you would buy the PETA line TBH...


----------



## ForEverAfter

It's a moot point, anyway.
Whether or not they need to technically remain pregnant to produce milk is irrelevant.
Their children are still slaughtered and they are still kept pregnant.

Also: while cows can lactate when they're not pregnant, they don't produce much milk (relative to when they are pregnant).
...and cows DON'T like their children being taken away. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBnZPJJ2QG4)

Dairy remains as bad, if not worse, than meat.
(IMO: In my opinion... NIPETAO: Not in PETA's opinion.)


----------



## Erikmen

Journyman16 said:


> It ain't Vegans and Vegetarians we need to be concerned about... or at least not only them... Apparently ANYONE wanting to eat healthy is now considered to be sick..
> 
> :D



Anyone not concerned with wanting to eat healthy foods is now considered sick. Was that what you meant?


----------



## Journyman16

Nope. It's anyone concerned WITH eating healthy is now to be considered suffering from Orthorexia Nervosa. Apparently having a desire not to consume weird chemicals and rogue ingredients or GMO's is clearly to be seen as some kind of disorder. Have a read of the link...


----------



## Erikmen

I see..maybe some sort of fixation..


----------



## Journyman16

LOL - you don't find it... um... interesting that wanting to eat good food is being defined as having something wrong with us?


----------



## Ninae

Journyman16 said:


> Nope. It's anyone concerned WITH eating healthy is now to be considered suffering from Orthorexia Nervosa. Apparently having a desire not to consume weird chemicals and rogue ingredients or GMO's is clearly to be seen as some kind of disorder. Have a read of the link...



It's just a way of lashing out against a threat towards the economy. If everyone suddenly insisted they will only eat food that is reasonably pure and has some real nourishment most of the food industry would have to be completely re-organised. Besides, there's much more profit in selling people synthetic crap.


----------



## Xorkoth

Journyman16 said:


> It ain't Vegans and Vegetarians we need to be concerned about... or at least not only them... Apparently ANYONE wanting to eat healthy is now considered to be sick.
> 
> *Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder*
> 
> From: http://naturalsociety.com/officials-declare-eating-healthy-mental-disorder/#ixzz3SH4ZBhWi
> 
> Apparently soon we will have Respira Nervosa, the sickness that is wanting to breathe actual air - they will release breathing masks that cure that need once and for all by restricting access of all air to the nose and mouth. :D



That's insane.  But yes the reason for this is clear.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I don't buy the conspiracy angle... I think what Journyman is describing is an eating disorder, in which people - through over-saturation - become terrified of certain "bad" foods and end up neglecting their diet resulting in severe nutritional deficiencies. I have seen this before. It's not that uncommon for people who attempt to maintain strict healthy diets to end up with nutritional deficiencies. I haven't checked the statistics, but I'm pretty sure that vegans and vegetarians have more malnutrition issues than people who eat junk food.

Although on the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that you can be unhealthy by being healthy, it doesn't take much working out.
The quote is being taken out of context and, generally, misinterpreted.



> I see..maybe some sort of fixation..



Yep. People can be fixated on \ obsessed with exercise, similarly.


----------



## Ninae

It's a way of regulating the economy, which has always been done, and is seen as necessary. 

I don't get this new trend of calling any observation of social control a conspiracy theory, you almost can't criticise anything about the way the world is being run any more. The world is clearly crazy and millions of things are done every day more for profit than your best interest.

Everyone should have the freedom to live as a health freak if that is what they want. It's nobody's business. There are many worse things someone can do, like living on junk food/processed food.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Conspiracy was implied...
I'll explain...

While it is a new term, some doctors (and other practitioners) are starting to use it diagnostically. If the term in fact refers to nothing, then they would have to be "in on it". Meaning that either the government and/or the hideously wealthy paid them off... or, perhaps, that they have been specially trained to pose as doctors so they can use the term and balance the economy. Either way, it is a conspiracy... and not a particularly convincing one.

The junk food industries are not threatened enough by people eating healthy, to warrant that sort of conspiracy.
It doesn't really make much sense, when you think about it.

...

(It's funny that you dislike "the modern trend" of calling things conspiracy theories... I dislike the modern trend that I have observed, of the tendency to call things conspiracy, which is what you did.)


----------



## Trying2Iso

I wish i was vegetarian but i dont make my own food i just eat what my fam makes

I want to be... vegetarian except occasional fish.  And no milk, but i still want cheese.
that would be my ideal diet


----------



## Erikmen

Trying2Iso said:


> I wish i was vegetarian but i dont make my own food i just eat what my fam makes
> 
> I want to be... vegetarian except occasional fish.  And no milk, but i still want cheese.
> that would be my ideal diet



It´s common sense issue. A bit of everything..plus eating at home is way better and healthier.
My grandma always says there´s love in cooking.
My wife cooks great family meals. She works as well so I and my kids end up washing the dishes.


----------



## Trying2Iso

Erikmen said:


> It´s common sense issue. A bit of everything..plus eating at home is way better and healthier.
> My grandma always says there´s love in cooking.
> My wife cooks great family meals. She works as well so I and my kids end up washing the dishes.



I'm lactose intolerant so i avoid dairy products
and i get acid reflux so i avoid meat when i can
plus meat contains harmful enzymes, or so ive heard.

I am grateful i have a dishwasher because i hattteee washing dishes


----------



## Journyman16

There's nothing wrong with meat, unless it's the hormoned, antibioticed, chemicalised shit they create to make money. Most people don't eat dairy any more, they eat pasteurised, homogenised calcium liquid processed into... something - I am unsure what it should be called. They pump all kinds of shit into it to make cheeses and even colour it so it looks like what actually WAS cheese before they killed all the enzymes.

It is interesting the rise of lactose intolerance when you compare it to the instigation of processed milk. 

And there is nothing in the article, nor in my searches for Orthorexia Nervosa that would suggest what they are talking about is people wioth some kind of compulsion about 'health' - it is quite clear they are talking about people who do not want to eat processed and chemicalised near-food as presented in the supermarkets.

You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to get classified as having Orthorexia Nervosa, you just need to be aware of health issues an not want to eat what the Corporations want to sell you.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Fucking Corporations!


----------



## Ninae

The big corporations have quite  lot of influence on politicians, laws, and the media, and official nutrition advice often seems to be the opposite of what Naturopaths or those who heal people with nutrition for a living do. 

Even though they can show great results, and what they teach can be verified in practice, the general opinion is more that this is an extremist practice, which has no real benefits (could even be harmful), and it's best to live like everyone else.


----------



## swilow

Journyman16 said:


> You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to get classified as having Orthorexia Nervosa, you just need to be aware of health issues an not want to eat what the Corporations want to sell you.



Did you think to read between the lines of that article you posted? It displays an already conspiratorial tone and certaintly gives no impression of being veracious or non-biased. There are no sources listed, so its claims are just opinion. I think most people with criticial thinking facilities would know to take the facts presented seasoned sparsely with (iodine infused/cancer causing) salt. 

I can't find the source of this (I didn't look hard):
"Orthorexia nervosa is a label designated to those who are concerned about eating healthy. Characterized by disordered eating fueled by a desire for “clean” or “healthy” foods, those diagnosed with the condition are overly pre-occupied with the nutritional makeup of what they eat".

But that's a good example of weasel words. The 'disorder', such as it is, has nothing to do with negatives of just eating healthy. It is about eating 'healthy' _to the detriment_ of actual health that is referred to by this disorder, not having less sugar in your tea. If you look at a more impartial website such as Wikipedia, the disorder is quite a different thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa Also, this isn't even a recognised disorder so lets not start seeing Elvis here too  This is just some dudes on the internet saying Jim Morrison can be found busking down at Flinders St. 

At times, I think the greatest conspiracy is the ease with which humans believe conspiracies and the way believers refuse to use critical thought when faced with them. It makes it seem that people are invested in obscuring the truth by claiming connections between disparate things when this stuff is really a by-product of the superstitious magical thinking inheerent to human mind. I think these people are trying to drag us down.


----------



## Ninae

You can't be sober now.


----------



## swilow

^The fuck does that even mean? I actually am sober besides some weed.


----------



## Xorkoth

Seemed like a perfectly coherent post to me.


----------



## Journyman16

Well they aren't exactly trying to make it difficult to be defined as Orthorexic. Questions to be asked for diagnosis...


> Other questions concerning those who may be suffering from orthorexia provided by Davis on the WebMD (2000) website are:
> 
> Do they spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about healthy foods?
> 
> When they eat the way they're supposed to, do they feel in total control?
> 
> Are they planning tomorrow's menu today?
> 
> Has the quality of their life decreased as the quality of their diet increased?
> 
> Have they become stricter with themselves? Does their self-esteem get a boost from eating healthy?
> 
> Do they look down on others who don't eat this way?
> 
> Do they skip foods they once enjoyed in order to eat the "right" foods?
> 
> Does their diet make it difficult for them to eat anywhere but at home, distancing them from family and friends?
> 
> Do they feel guilt or self-loathing when they stray from their diet?
> 
> If yes was answered to two or more questions, the person may have a mild case of orthorexia


I figure anyone who takes even moderate care of themselves diet-wise would classify under such criteria. What I haven't been able to find are papers regarding just WHY people might have such a disorder - which is fairly common in psychiatry actually. Describe the disoreder/sybdrome and prescribe for it - causes are things that may possibly cure the patient, cutting off the flow of money.

For example, what if it's the feelings they get after eating the crap we are told is food these days? Subconsciously maybe they associate the poor food choices with the debased feeling that comes from eating junk and so they begin to look for foods that do not give them such feelings? Orthorexia at that point would not be a disorder but a sane reaction to a hidden problem.

@Willow - Sources aren't _that_ hard to find - they are listed on the Wiki page you linked to. Steven Bratman and there's a paper by Donin et al referenced as well.

It may not be listed in DSM5 but doctors ARE using it as a diagnosis. Which means it is going mainstream.

I think we have too many names we throw around for things that can as easily be called bad behaviour or even stupidity. There's an example of a US woman who went to live in Germany - she mentioned being surprised on a trek up a steep hill with a cliff on one side that their were no warning signs nor guard rails to prevent people falling off. The German with her kind of sniggered and said something like, "Only stupid people would not know falling over a cliff is dangerous!"

We now have a society where people are so mollycoddled they can't be trusted to not fall over and will do stupid shit like (apparently) eat to their own detriment and expect others to solve their problems that come from it. How weak minded must we be to be unable to say No to eating Maccas 5 times a week?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Quoting some of the questions used to diagnose something that isn't even yet recognized, from a questionable website, doesn't disprove it's existence.
I can find an internet source to back up any particular agenda I might have, in any particular situation.

Until you show some evidence of widespread misdiagnosis, I don't see your point...

I mean, do you actually know anyone who's been diagnosed with this?
If not, why are you inclined to think that people who shouldn't be diagnosed are being diagnosed?
(Seems like you're taking something out of context, and sensationalizing details, like mass media.)


----------



## One Thousand Words

I think this thread is evidence enough of people taking their diets to an unhealthy extreme. It is one thing to eliminate things you don't enjoy eating, but conspiracies and pseudo science approach to nutrition is often just as unhealthy in impressionable minds. There is nothing unhealthy with eating meat, fish or poultry just as there is nothing unhealthy about a vegetarian diet. The risk increases as you start eliminating major food groups that you start to create deficiencies in essential minerals, vitamins and even groups like amino acids. Listening to your body is key.


----------



## Journyman16

Fairly sure I didn't say any of that.


----------



## Ninae

It's political. The largest industries are organised in guilds with immense financial and political power and lobby aggressively for their own interests. Everyone who knows a bit about politics are very aware of this but for some reason they don't think it affects the way they live their lives.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Fairly sure I didn't say any of that.



Was that directed at me?


----------



## socko

Do all you reasonably can, but don't let it harm your health.  I spent some time last year trying to live off the land. I hunted, fished, harvested wild plants, and grew a vegetable garden. I would have raised chickens for eggs and meat if I had the time. I had done that several years ago. 





Ninae said:


> Studies have shown commercial meat to be very toxic, prone to triggering diseases like cancer, and shortening of lifespan. Most meat products, like sausages, burgers, kebabs, etc. have no nutritional value, anyway (more like negative nutritional value). If you can afford organic steak it would be different.
> 
> Though this is a very unpopular view for all kinds of reasons. And mostly economical......


There is something to this.  The conditions under which the animal was raised, what it was fed, what drugs and hormones etc were given to it, and how it was slaughtered affect the quality and even the flavor of the meat, eggs, mik, etc.  But I'm not sure if it is known if it can have a significant long term effects on your health. Nobody has demonstrated that, afik.
If you believe animals are sensitive to their environment and are affected by their 'quality of life,'   that's another reason to pay attention to the source of your food. In high-throughput factory farming, animals are grown in extremely crowded and dirty conditions which, to us, are disgusting. Free-range and game animals, if you can afford them, would be a better choice.


----------



## Ninae

Pictures like these really show the divinity in animals. 








Its aura is SO pure and innocent.

When I was in for psychiatric evaluation (or voluntarily committed for a benzo script) I said one of the things that bothered me the most about this world is all the suffering inflicted on animals. And all they could do was grin and snigger as they obviously found that completely pathetic. 

But it is one of the things that depresses me the most. Especially imagining cats being tortured or skinned alive almost makes me insane.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> When I was in for psychiatric evaluation (or voluntarily committed for a benzo script) I said one of the things that bothered me the most about this world is all the suffering inflicted on animals. And all they could do was grin and snigger as they obviously found that completely pathetic.



I find that psychiatrists and the staff at psychiatric facilities I've been admitted to have shown less care than anybody else.
They're so jaded, having dealt with other people's problems for decades.
Often they don't even pretend to care, the overpaid fuckers.

I feel more comfortable talking about my depressive triggers with an unqualified stranger, on the internet.

Having said that, most meat eaters repress their true feelings about contributing to the torture of animals and - consequently - don't feel comfortable discussing other people's true feelings on the subject because they're afraid of their own... It's easier for them to mock, then it is to re-connect with their spiritual core and realize that they're contributing to the suffering of animals / doing something reprehensible..

So, maybe, assuming that the people doing your psych evaluation were meat eaters, you experienced a combination of both the jaded and the repressed?

...

PS. That photo is just as divine as a photo of a person, for me.
I'm not sure that God is in a donkey any more than God is in a banana.

PSS. Auras aren't captured by cameras.


----------



## Ninae

Not the literal aura but the energy it emanates.


----------



## herbavore

ForEverAfter said:


> I find that psychiatrists and the staff at psychiatric facilities I've been admitted to have shown less care than anybody else.
> They're so jaded, having dealt with other people's problems for decades.
> Often they don't even pretend to care, the overpaid fuckers.
> 
> I feel more comfortable talking about my depressive triggers with an unqualified stranger, on the internet.
> 
> Having said that, most meat eaters repress their true feelings about contributing to the torture of animals and - consequently - don't feel comfortable discussing other people's true feelings on the subject because they're afraid of their own... It's easier for them to mock, then it is to re-connect with their spiritual core and realize that they're contributing to the suffering of animals / doing something reprehensible..



My experience with the mental health field and psychiatrists in particular has led me to believe that the field has been completely hijacked by the shoddy science of the Holy DSM and the highly profitable drugging of the world for everything and anything that used to simply be a part of being human in all its glorious diversity. The laziness and lack of inquiry and imagination that the DSM supports in modern psychiatry is atrocious. End of rant for now since that isn't the main point of this thread but just had to agree.

I am a terribly guilty meat eater. By that I mean that I agree that I am contributing to something that I could not do if faced with the reality of it directly. When I was young I went to a little hippie school in the Appalachians that actually had us think about where our meat came from and I became a vegetarian overnight. I stayed vegetarian into my twenties and began eating meat again when I was the guest of someone that served little else than meat and I was uncomfortable refusing to eat it. I assumed that it would be temporary but continued and do to this day. But you are right that it is a very uncomfortable place for me to be.

While I do limit myself to eating only small-farmed local meat as a fraction of my diet (and that is reinforced by the fact that it is so expensive that I couldn't afford to eat it every day) I know that if I would have to watch any animal be slaughtered and then prepared for consumption that I could not eat it. This is in contrast to people I know that do hunt and kill and prepare their own meat. To me that seems completely honest even if it is something I could not do. I basically feel like the world's worst hypocrite when it comes to meat. 

My love of animals means that I love a lot of predators. I hike a lot and see the remains of deer killed by coyotes and mountain lions, I have pet cats that kill rodents and the other day I actually had to turn away from watching a pelican drown a cormorant to get the fish that the cormorant had just caught. I'm not sure whether we are evolutionarily meant to be predators or not I just know that I am not meant to be one and that the only reason I am is that I am letting someone else do the dirty work for me so I don't have to think about it.

 In many ways I think that so many of the problems that people have within come from this separation from the basic life cycle.


----------



## Ninae

This made me feel even worse. 








They're only one day old and already on the production line. And they're so beautiful and sunny to look at and there's a little piece of God in all of them. You've gotta be heartless to work in that industry.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It is better, IMO, to feel pain.
I, too, struggle with being vegan / vegetarian.
Having been brought up a meat-eater, it is a HUGE adjustment to go vegan.
Currently I am a practicing vegan, but - like you, herbavore - when I do relapse I am a self-hating meat eater.
At least you're not completely detached from your reality.
It is better to acknowledge what is going on.
It's a step in the right direction.

I don't see meat relapses as being significantly different to alcohol relapses, in the sense that I know I shouldn't be consuming either.
They (alcohol and meat) both make me hate myself... and the hate is increasing, over time, as I get closer to transitioning permanently.
Peer pressure is a big obstacle, for me, for both alcohol and meat.

I find it quite difficult sometimes to resist, when I'm surrounded by social meat / alcohol consumption.
This is especially true if I'm depressed, which ends up being a vicious cycle.

I've recently realized that I'm gluten intolerant, too, which means that I shouldn't eat meat / dairy / alcohol.
This "trifecta of abstinence" makes it seriously difficult to dine with other people.
I need to have non-gluten vegan food, to remain happy.

When I go to dinner at my parent's house, it's particularly difficult.
Everybody is drinking wine and eating home-cooked meals.
I feel embarrassed, insisting that I can't join them.
People look down on vegans.
They think we're crazy.

My family asks me why I'm doing it, and I don't want to insult them.
But, at the same time, I want to try and convince them to join me.
It's weird how addicted everyone is to meat.
Most people eat animal products every day.
I feel like an outsider, like Lisa Simpson.

It's really frustrating, but I'm coming to terms with it.
I'm making progress towards becoming permanently vegan, and gluten / alcohol free.
Sometimes I beat myself up about not getting there fast enough, which - in turn - slows me down.

My girlfriend is doing a vegan week, which I really appreciate.
She loves animals more than I do and I know it causes her serious pain to eat them.



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> You've gotta be heartless to work in that industry.



I don't think it's fair to condemn everyone who works in (or has ever worked in) a slaughterhouse.
Some people don't have a lot of options, unfortunately, and they need to support their family.
I've known people that I've loved and respected who've worked in chicken factories.

In many ways, I think, it is worse to be the consumer... and that applies to dairy just as much as meat.
No offence, but I suspect you may be distancing yourself from personal responsibility by condemning others.

Are people who euthanize cats and dogs heartless?






This is basically the holocaust. But - like the holocaust - all Nazi soldiers weren't evil.
The system (3rd Reich) was to blame. The individuals didn't really have a choice.
Germans aren't evil... neither are people who work in factory farms. (IMO)
It could have been you working for the Nazis, or killing chickens.
I don't believe in evil.


----------



## Ninae

Not distancing myself from the responsibility by condemning others. I just don't feel ready for it yet, and it's very hard without a transition period of eating dairy. I also think dairy could be available in more limited amounts that were produced in a more ethical way, so I don't feel it needs to be cut off completely like meat should be. 

Having said that, if I were given the choice of a dairy production to be stopped if I stopped consuming dairy, I definitely would. It's not the end of the world, and people in the Western world have over-indulged themselves on all kinds of food for far too long. With imagination you could also learn to cook well without dairy just like you learn to cook without meat. Almond milk can be as good as regular milk, for instance, and nut butters are great too. You just need to find a way to use salt, fat, spices, and raw materials with strong flavours (like roasted walnuts with onions is as good as mincemeat).

My dad has actually worked in the meat industry his whole life. Although he's a food inspector so he only deals with the finished product and doesn't see any of horror that is going on. But farmers come in with their animals from all over the province there. My grandfather was also a butcher, he wasn't very delicate, and I once asked him how he could do it and he said "You just slash the pig's throat so fast it doesn't feel anything". 

But he really loved animals and had real empathy for them and I guess it's good with someone like that in that position. He had an incredible relationship with animals. He loved them and they were crazy about him. Our pets forgot all about us when he was around. But I think this was also because he was very powerful and like a strong leader type, so they felt safe and protected around him, as no one would dare do anything to them when he was around. 

All the same, he didn't see a problem in killing animals on an assembly line, but he was very insensitive, and repressed and compartmentalised his feelings. Then both me and my sisters chose to become vegetarians when we quit school, and my dad couldn't really believe that, but the sins of the fathers, etc.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I also think dairy could be available in more limited amounts that were produced in a more ethical way, so I don't feel it needs to be cut off completely like meat should be.



It's not going to be, though. You've said this before... I think you're lying to yourself.
I mean the same thing could be argued to justify the meat industry, couldn't it?



> I just don't feel ready for it yet



How is that any different from people who aren't ready to stop consuming meat?
When will you be ready?

...

I don't see how you can judge factory workers in an industry that you support.
They are working for you.


----------



## Ninae

If you don't see cutting out meat consumption as an accomplishment there's really no way to argue with you. This line of reasoning is pretty crazy as well, considering all the suffering it would reduce. 

To me, halving 50% of the atrocities counts for a lot, and the remaining 50% doesn't invalidate that. From what I've seen most also feel that way. Unless you're just trying to excuse your meat consumption by saying dairy is just as bad or even worse. Why not give up dairy then?

Hypocricy isn't the issue here. The lessing of the burden on animal suffering is. I don't feel proud of my dairy consumption but I'm not going to be made to believe that living meat-free of over a decade has contributed nothing because of that. Where would the world be if the millions of vegetrians were carnivores? Not a happier place for the animal kingdom.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I never said it wasn't an accomplishment... I will say, however, that I suspect you're using that (genuine) sense of accomplishment to justify other contributions towards the suffering of animals: in much the same way some people deal with guilt by consuming cage-free eggs... Whether or not you're consuming caged eggs or free-range, you're still contributing to the suffering of animals... and whether or not you're consuming dairy or meat, you're still contributing to the suffering of animals...

As I said, I don't think you're in a position to call meat eaters or people who work in slaughterhouses heartless.
I mean, by your own logic, aren't you "heartless"? (I'm NOT saying that you are. I'm exploring your logic.)

Vegetarianism is not good enough, in my opinion. The logic you're presenting is falsely representative of the issue/s.
To put it in another context, what you're saying is: if you don't rape people that is better than both raping and murdering people.
I can't argue with that. Of course it is better. But, not raping people doesn't justify murder (in _any_ way, whatsoever).

You said you're not "ready" to take dairy out of your diet.
What are you afraid of? When will you be ready?
You've been a vegetarian for 5 years, already.
Why not try it and see how you feel?
Or, have you already tried?
If so, what happened?



> you're just trying to excuse your meat consumption by saying dairy is just as bad or even worse. Why not give up dairy then?



Dairy is just as bad as meat.
I have given up both...
(I'm confused.)


----------



## ebola?

I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian, out of ethical concerns.  This is my particular current compromise between hedonism, convenience, and altruism (I was a vegan for a few years a while back).  Heh, I did eat meat the year that I spent in South Korea...basically, meat appears in all their entrees, and dining out is utterly central to social relationships.  I didn't notice any real changes in health or even how I felt in any vague sense switching between omnivory, vegetarianism, and veganism.  One can eat a healthy or shitty diet on all of these paths.

ebola


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae's posts highlight, to me anyway, a problem with being opposed to eating meat based on grounds of pain/suffering. It's easy to see beauty in that little donkey or other fluffy animals but that is merely you projecting beauty on to it. As was stated god is just as much in a banana as something fluffy.

If you walk around outside you inadvertently kill numerous insects and critters all the time. Where is the lamentation for their passing? You didn't even bother to eat them, let alone recognize their death.

Then there's the slight issue that flora may actually register pain just as animals do. They certainly transmit a warning to other nearby plants. Also if you could speed up time you'd see plants are just as murderous to each other as any animal is to its prey.. it just happens so slow you only see the beauty of their forms. Just because you can't see animation of life, eyes or fluffyness doesn't mean plants don't have the same driving spirit that animals, or humans do. 

I just don't understand the unnecessary torture you do to yourself by creating a concept of death/suffering for some particular animals. Don't get me wrong, industrial production is barbaric, ruthlessly and hellishly efficient.. 

If I had the chance to capture and kill my own food in the context of my urban life, I would. I find it to be a _real_ experience, spiritual if you will, that connects me back to what the fuck is this all about, you know? This is not a morbid or twisted sense of death/killing, but more of an honour, a privilege to be a part of this reality. I see god in death just as much as I see god in the living animal or beautiful flower blossoming. 

When I die I will be honoured for the bugs and microbes to feast on my flesh. Least I would if I didn't believe cemeteries to be such a fucking waste of space.


----------



## ebola?

What I'm hearing is that you think someone must do the most good possible to do any good.  Is that what you're trying to put across?

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

when you kill insects, you dont know it.
but when you buy meat, you know you encourage a industry based on killing animals.

its all about your intentions. when you kill inadvertly bugs, its not your fault, but when you encourage the killing of animals because you like meat, its very different.

 trying to justify the killings of animals is useless, it doesnt work. a animal doesnt want to be killed, yet we kill them and we create unnecessary suffering. clearly, if you think plants suffer as much as animals when we kill them, you havent think this through. 


-=SS=- said:


> Ninae's posts highlight, to me anyway, a problem with being opposed to eating meat based on grounds of pain/suffering. It's easy to see beauty in that little donkey or other fluffy animals but that is merely you projecting beauty on to it. As was stated god is just as much in a banana as something fluffy.
> 
> If you walk around outside you inadvertently kill numerous insects and critters all the time. Where is the lamentation for their passing? You didn't even bother to eat them, let alone recognize their death.
> 
> Then there's the slight issue that flora may actually register pain just as animals do. They certainly transmit a warning to other nearby plants. Also if you could speed up time you'd see plants are just as murderous to each other as any animal is to its prey.. it just happens so slow you only see the beauty of their forms. Just because you can't see animation of life, eyes or fluffyness doesn't mean plants don't have the same driving spirit that animals, or humans do.
> 
> I just don't understand the unnecessary torture you do to yourself by creating a concept of death/suffering for some particular animals. Don't get me wrong, industrial production is barbaric, ruthlessly and hellishly efficient..
> 
> If I had the chance to capture and kill my own food in the context of my urban life, I would. I find it to be a _real_ experience, spiritual if you will, that connects me back to what the fuck is this all about, you know? This is not a morbid or twisted sense of death/killing, but more of an honour, a privilege to be a part of this reality. I see god in death just as much as I see god in the living animal or beautiful flower blossoming.
> 
> When I die I will be honoured for the bugs and microbes to feast on my flesh. Least I would if I didn't believe cemeteries to be such a fucking waste of space.


----------



## -=SS=-

murphythecat said:


> when you kill insects, you dont know it.
> but when you buy meat, you know you encourage a industry based on killing animals.
> 
> its all about your intentions. when you kill inadvertly bugs, its not your fault, but when you encourage the killing of animals because you like meat, its very different.
> 
> trying to justify the killings of animals is useless, it doesnt work. a animal doesnt want to be killed, yet we kill them and we create unnecessary suffering. clearly, if you think plants suffer as much as animals when we kill them, you havent think this through.



You're just rehashing and jukeboxing the same old argument.

You try to make a distinction based upon intentionality. How exactly do you qualify that.. who is the judge and what is deemed malicious, intentional, inadvertent? Basically, your position is ridiculous.. no offense, I just can't be bothered to pick it apart philosophically using language right now.

If you kill an animal instantly and it doesn't suffer, what then? Does that now become acceptable? 

When I buy meat I don't do it to encourage an industry that could adopt better practices but won't because profit is the bottom line and greed has fucked the souls of individuals. I buy it because I want meat in my diet and thanks to the rest of you wacky humans I now live in a fucking concrete jungle where the only hunting options I have available to me is pigeon and rat. If I had a farm I'd quite happily raise and slaughter my own food, and I'd give those animals more love than they'd get from a lot of people, and a cleaner death than they would in the wild.


----------



## murphythecat

if a animal suffer physically or not, it doesnt matter. what matters is that he doesnt want to be killed, yet we kill him for our own benefit. exactly the opposite of compassion.
you are the only one who can know your intentions and we, ourselves, suffer the most from our bad choice in life. 

you buy meat most importantly not for your good diet, but because you like meat, even if its at the detriment of the animals. since, especially now, that you know how badly the poor animals are treated in the farms, the fact that you still decide to buy and by the same token encourage the most cruel industry in the world makes me think you may lack compassion for the animals. doesnt make you a bad person, but I dont see how people can convince themselves they are doing the best they can to make a better world by encouraging the slaughter and the worst living conditions of other sentient beings. its a terrible ife those animals have. and if we all stopped to buy meat, that indsutry would die and much less animals would suffer.

I dont care really, but its something to ponder about if you would have a farm and you wouldnt feel bad to kill your pig. I know I couldnt kill a pig, ever. because I'm sure the pig doesnt want to die, hence his horrible reaction when hes just about to be killed.




-=SS=- said:


> You're just rehashing and jukeboxing the same old argument.
> 
> You try to make a distinction based upon intentionality. How exactly do you qualify that.. who is the judge and what is deemed malicious, intentional, inadvertent? Basically, your position is ridiculous.. no offense, I just can't be bothered to pick it apart philosophically using language right now.
> 
> If you kill an animal instantly and it doesn't suffer, what then? Does that now become acceptable?
> 
> When I buy meat I don't do it to encourage an industry that could adopt better practices but won't because profit is the bottom line and greed has fucked the souls of individuals. I buy it because I want meat in my diet and thanks to the rest of you wacky humans I now live in a fucking concrete jungle where the only hunting options I have available to me is pigeon and rat. If I had a farm I'd quite happily raise and slaughter my own food, and I'd give those animals more love than they'd get from a lot of people, and a cleaner death than they would in the wild.


----------



## -=SS=-

murphythecat said:


> if a animal suffer physically or not, it doesnt matter. what matters is that he doesnt want to be killed, yet we kill him for our own benefit. exactly the opposite of compassion.
> you are the only one who can know your intentions and we, ourselves, suffer the most from our bad choice in life.
> 
> you buy meat most importantly not for your good diet, but because you like meat, even if its at the detriment of the animals. since, especially now, that you know how badly the poor animals are treated in the farms, the fact that you still decide to buy and by the same token encourage the most cruel industry in the world makes me think you may lack compassion for the animals. doesnt make you a bad person, but I dont see how people can convince themselves they are doing the best they can to make a better world by encouraging the slaughter and the worst living conditions of other sentient beings. its a terrible ife those animals have. and if we all stopped to buy meat, that indsutry would die and much less animals would suffer.
> 
> I dont care really, but its something to ponder about if you would have a farm and you wouldnt feel bad to kill your pig. I know I couldnt kill a pig, ever. because I'm sure the pig doesnt want to die, hence his horrible reaction when hes just about to be killed.



Listen, if I had more money I would pay for meat that I know is proper farm quality and not be forced to buy from shitty supermakets like Tesco which are the real cunts who encourage the industrial farming processes. Not my fault the greed of consumer and market destroyed all the local butchers and green grocers. 

Would I feel bad for the animal I'd raised and about to slaughter? Sure. I'm not a heartless person. When I said I'd give them love I didn't mean form an emotional bond like a dog owner would.. it's more going the extra mile to ensure they live content lives and are cared for. But at the end of the day I'm an animal and there is absolutely no reason to get myself in a pickle over desiring to eat flesh.. my body is what it is, I didn't ask for it (to my knowledge). I just found myself here and part of this insane aquarium called life. If I could survive without eating I would.. I don't particularly care for it. Things taste nice sure, but eating is something I'm forced to do if I want to stay alive. 

I respect those who want to be vegetarian or whatever, so long as you're not punishing yourself and that energy ends up affecting those around you. The only ones I despise are those who claim to be against animal suffering and simultaneously own pets to fill an emotional void in their lives. Any pet my family owned I loved and cared for, and I do the same for friends. But I would never buy an animal just for my amusement. Just to give you an insight on who I am.. you see actually I have compassion for animals. I just don't operate under illusions about the supposed morality of killing for food.


----------



## ebola?

sekio said:
			
		

> Black salt is some interesting stuff, if you've ever used it. I don't know where to use such a sulphurous seasoning though.'



This is great for a traditional South Indian mock omolette (vegan).  It's based in besan, chickpea flour.  Its texture is a bit dosa-like.

ebola


----------



## infectedmushroom

When I was eighteen, for the first time in my life, I watched an animal being butchered for consumption.

It was a chicken, and I was in Africa. One person stood on it's back legs (which must have caused it pain) and the other stood over it with a knife and cut it's head off - the entire thing was over in about 10 seconds. It was morbidly fascinating.

I say morbidly fascinating because I was in two conflicted moods whilst the animal was being plucked and gutted. One side of me, the more animalistic, had a definite experience of blood lust, and a sense of pleasure that soon a meal was to be placed in front of me. The other side of me, whilst staring at the head of the chicken which had been separated from its body, felt remorse.

Then I started contemplating death. This chicken lived as free-range a life as you could ever imagine. It ran around, being, put simply, a chicken. Nothing more, nothing less. Then suddenly, someone picked it up, stood on it, and before it could say "squawk" it's head was on the floor. In one way, it was cruel, but I actually felt there was something very natural and normal about it as well. 

I won't go deeply into factory farming, because that's where the vast majority of my disgust for the meat/animal industry lies - for obvious reasons. Few souls could say the images and videos and facts they hear and see coming from those places don't make them sick and horrified. 

BUT. I compare the images of factory farms to the image of that chicken being beheaded (which, by the way, ended up feeding 10 people well, not one piece of the carcass gone to waste) and in my heart of hearts, I know it wasn't wrong or immoral for that animal to die. We are, at the end of the day, HUMAN, and eating other animals is not wrong.

Where immorality enters this argument is in _consumption levels._ 

We are so ravenously greedy for animal products _we_ force animal production industries to become increasingly industrialized to cope with the demand, which makes conditions for animals and people alike within the industry atrocious. 

If we all cut our animal product intake by a quarter; hell, even ONE HALF, the benefits would be enormous. Except for one thing. Profits.

And here, my cynical, nihilistic side comes out. This will take a VERY long time to happen, and everything takes so long to change, because the mighty dollar bills comes first. It can change, and I believe it will. It will just take time. A big part of it is up to us. 

I'm trying to cut down on my animal intake atm, choosing more veggie options when I can. I'm not a vegetarian though, and never will be. To me, the answer is less, not none. 

Also, if anyone is interested in some out-there reading, google "Declaration of War" by Screaming Wolf. Fascinating.


----------



## Ninae

infectedmushroom said:


> If we all cut our animal product intake by a quarter; hell, even ONE HALF, the benefits would be enormous. Except for one thing. Profits.



Not just affect profits, the industry would have to be completely re-orgiansed, with more acres of land to grow food, etc. It would be an enormous project and things would be both harder to produce and less profitable to sell, so there's not much enthusiasm for it, to say the least. It's ok if a few people turn vegetarian for health reasons, etc. but for the vast majority to is very undesired. 



infectedmushroom said:


> And here, my cynical, nihilistic side comes out. This will take a VERY long time to happen, and everything takes so long to change, because the mighty dollar bills comes first. It can change, and I believe it will. It will just take time. A big part of it is up to us.



That kind of thinking is the reason things never change. If everyone just stopped over night it would stop. If 50% of us stopped half of it would stop. But it takes one and one at a time, over a long period, for something like this to actually change. 

It's just what it takes, so it's confused to see it as pointless. It would only be pointless if only you did it, which it can seem like from your own limited viewpoint, but is not how it turns out when more change the way they live. If everyone thought like that at the start there would be no vegetarians, when now the 5-10% there are makes a real change.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> if a animal suffer physically or not, it doesnt matter.



I wonder how you would feel if someone said that about you. Feeling compassion for other creatures counts. It's not just about following certain principles according to one's belief-system.


----------



## Ninae

-=SS=- said:


> Ninae's posts highlight, to me anyway, a problem with being opposed to eating meat based on grounds of pain/suffering. It's easy to see beauty in that little donkey or other fluffy animals but that is merely you projecting beauty on to it. As was stated god is just as much in a banana as something fluffy.



I see it the other way around. We tend to deporsonalise and take out the soul and beauty of the animals slaughtered for us to eat. As opposed to a cute kitten we take with us home and raise as a family member. 

But the difference is more in our mind - the cute kitten doesn't deserve life more because we're emotionally connected to it. And that was my point. You can see things in different ways. I also don't see the logic in your thinking when I belong to those who feel all animals should be treated the same.


----------



## -=SS=-

infectedmushroom said:


> Then I started contemplating death. This chicken lived as free-range a life as you could ever imagine. It ran around, being, put simply, a chicken. Nothing more, nothing less. Then suddenly, someone picked it up, stood on it, and before it could say "squawk" it's head was on the floor. In one way, it was cruel, but I actually felt there was something very natural and normal about it as well.



Hurrah! Another person who understands 

Your post reminded of another point in this debate, the fact that in our modern lives we're almost totally insulated from death and that imagination fills in the void for us.. we build it up to be something so massively horrific. Suffering is horrific, death not so much. Then there's the "cute fluffy omg!" factor in that we attach emotionally to these creatures as if they were all so pure and innocent. Very Disney-esque thinking from childhood. All these cute creatures that talked and were human in personality. Yeh.. go to the wild and try to befriend some of those animals and they won't think twice about killing you.

Really there is no difference in killing an animals for food than a wild animal doing the same. If anything we can ensure less pain and suffering by giving a clean, quick death. 

Also remember the food chain. What is the point of the mouse's existence? Food for the cat, poop/fertilizer for the ground. Everything depends on assimilating the essence of organisms beneath them on the chain. It's called _life_. We are animals, not angels.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> there's the "cute fluffy omg!" factor in that we attach emotionally to these creatures as if they were all so pure and innocent. Very Disney-esque thinking from childhood. All these cute creatures that talked and were human in personality. Yeh.. go to the wild and try to befriend some of those animals and they won't think twice about killing you.



People (generally) don't eat predators large enough to consume / kill them.
What innocent animals that we - as a species - consume on a _regular_ basis would kill us in the wild?
(Limit it to Western diets, for the sake of argument.)

Sharks... ?



> there is no difference in killing an animals for food than a wild animal doing the same.



There is no difference between humans hunting and another animal species hunting, but farming is quite different... isn't it?



> If anything we can ensure less pain and suffering by giving a clean, quick death.



As hunters we can ensure less pain and suffering than other species, sure.
But farming means the animal is never free, regardless of how much relative suffering it endures at the moment of death... It's like the prison system. We can ensure that we execute people in a humane way, but they're caged for years / decades prior to death. The cruelest part of the death penalty (for humans and animals) is what happens before death...

I don't see how this can - realistically - be reduced to (what I consider) an acceptable level...
It can theoretically, of course...



> Also remember the food chain. What is the point of the mouse's existence? Food for the cat, poop/fertilizer for the ground. Everything depends on assimilating the essence of organisms beneath them on the chain. It's called life. We are animals, not angels.



The food chain is not a parallel to the meat industry.
God intended us to eat other animals, but he also intended us to question whether or not we should.
We're no longer simply animals. We've moved outside of the food chain. We empathize with our prey.
We don't need to contribute to the suffering of animals... emphasis on need.
If you agree that we don't need to, then why do it?

Societal change is a long-term process. I could be wrong, but I genuinely believe that - one day - we will look back at the meat industry as barbaric and immoral in the same way that we do with (human) slavery.


----------



## Ninae

-=SS=- said:


> Then there's the "cute fluffy omg!" factor in that we attach emotionally to these creatures as if they were all so pure and innocent. Very Disney-esque thinking from childhood.



That argument doesn't make any sense against a vegetarian who already feels all animals are worth the same. That is the way the average person feels so it's usually used as an argument against meat-consumption. But the existence of a lesser evil doesn't mean a greater evil should also be acceptable, quite the opposite. That's a twisted way of thinking but that's the kind of straws people grasp for.

Arguments like these are just in theory, anyway. No matter what someone says they wouldn't actually be willing to consume flesh from the animals used as pets and most wouldn't be willing to stnd by and watch it happen. So it has no actual connection with reality. No one can really give any intelligent arguments for eating meat because there are none that stands up to scrutiny.

And it's true what has been said about hunting. If people actually had to go out and hunt for their own animals it wouldn't be so bad as it would be more balanced and the amount of animals they would kill woud be limited. It's not right the way it is now where everyone can consume as much animal-flesh they want from their own armchair and dissociate from or suppress what they're really doing.


----------



## murphythecat

you dont understand what I meant there.

what I meant was that even if a animal, while being killed do not suffer, its still immoral to kill him, because the animal want to live, and we take his life.

killing is killing and we have to stop killing things not only because the animal suffer when we kill them, obviously.



Ninae said:


> I wonder how you would feel if someone said that about you. Feeling compassion for other creatures counts.* It's not just about following certain principles according to one's belief-system*.


lol


----------



## Ninae

Oh well, in that case. You can just sound like a robot who repeats Buddhist principles sometimes.


----------



## murphythecat

close your eye, put your attention to the breath and look into your heart.
See all the hatred, judgments, resentment you have in there, and let it go away, like a black cloud. fill your heart with love. Breath in peace and breath out love and feel the love in your heart.





Ninae said:


> Oh well, in that case. You can just sound like a robot who repeats Buddhist principles sometimes.


----------



## ForEverAfter

You should give out flowers at airport terminals.


----------



## What 23

murphythecat said:


> you dont understand what I meant there.
> 
> what I meant was that even if a animal, while being killed do not suffer, its still immoral to kill him, because the animal want to live, and we take his life.
> 
> killing is killing and we have to stop killing things not only because the animal suffer when we kill them, obviously.
> 
> 
> lol




Life feeds on life. Plants "don't want to be eaten" either. And I doubt a bird doesn't "want" to fail at munching seeds-- some of which, the 'failures', end up dispersing these seeds, helping the tree.

Humans require B12.
And I would love to put a strict vegan (or vegetarian) like you in a place frozen over with shelter and tools for survival, but no food. No vitamins. There are fish under the ice. There are deer in the forest. 
I don't think you're going to find enough berries under a foot of snow, and frozen ground. You might find roots, but eventually you're going to need to kill a deer or eat some fish.

Are you calling entire peoples, such as the Inuit, immoral? Their diet is largely salmon.

You are very narrow minded.


----------



## Ninae

What 23 said:


> And I would love to put a strict vegan like you in a place frozen over with shelter and tools for survival, but no food. No vitamins. There's fish under the ice. There are deer in the forest.
> I don't think you're going to find enough berries under a foot of snow, and frozen ground. You might find roots, but eventually you're going to need to kill a deer or eat some fish.



But again this is a hypothetical scenario that is never going to happen. Why not wait to worry about that until you end up frozen in? For all you know, you could end up trapped in a place with only plantfood to live off.


----------



## What 23

You don't know that.

Basically I'm saying... This diet requires human constructions (and human morality is this as well- construction, even if that is another topic), which are not permanent, and can fail. This diet requires lab synthesized white powders. Vegan, that is.


----------



## What 23

I'm allergic to most plant food that I try. It could be something in the processing (though I don't eat processed food per sey, or I eat minimally processed... but packaging).

And if that is all there is I'd have trouble in a few years. I require b12.


----------



## Ninae

Well, let's just hope you won't be stuck for years.


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae said:


> No one can really give any intelligent arguments for eating meat because there are none that stands up to scrutiny.



Sorry Ninae but you are talking out of your arse. How about the simple truth that we _are_ animals living in a terrestrial aquarium where we require nourishment by consuming other living entities. That is what biological life is. One eating another, the transmutation of energy upwards to more complex and refined forms. 




			
				ForEverAfter said:
			
		

> There is no difference between humans hunting and another animal species hunting, but farming is quite different... isn't it?



Animals farm other animals, we're not the only species that does it. If the animal is treated well and ensured a comfortable existence in exchange for its produce or flesh, how is it any different to any other symbiotic relationship in nature. The animal gets a good existence, gets fed, gets a safe environment to roam around in (obviously industrial practice fails here). Proper farming gives the animals ample freedom. 

Besides, what about us? You think we're not being farmed by the establishment? Cities are basically concrete factories to milk humans of their time and energy. Don't see much complaint about that these days..

And despite our pretense at being the 'top dog' it would shock most people to learn we are in fact being farmed by another species, we just can't perceive them with our senses. I wish I could prove that point to people but unfortunately I can't, but I'm certain it's the truth. Not talking about reptilians or anything here, you wont find it printed anywhere. We have our own essence that is valuable to a species higher than us on the chain and the milking takes place most days for people. But no one complains about the process, in fact we revel in it *hint*.



			
				ForEverAfter said:
			
		

> God intended us to eat other animals, but he also intended us to question whether or not we should.
> We're no longer simply animals. We've moved outside of the food chain. We empathize with our prey.
> We don't need to contribute to the suffering of animals... emphasis on need.
> If you agree that we don't need to, then why do it?



How do you claim to know gods intentions on the matter? I assume you're joking, you don't strike me as a religious person.

As I've stated I don't agree with the suffering of animals in the food production process but it's something I have zero control over. And I'm not going to make my life more difficult and punish myself for something I had nothing to do with in the first place. Forcing me to adapt to toxic circumstances only breeds more toxicity for myself and those I interact with. The problem is squarely on the greedy fucktards in business and government who know exactly what the facts are and continue to force an industry on us we can't change. They undercut the legitimate sources of food and sell us stuff they ripped off from other businesses. Tesco's (UK supermarket) routinely tries to fuck farmers over by undercutting/asking for a stupidly low price on food. I know how they think, and it was confirmed by someone I know who worked in their head office. The supermarkets and industrial processers have a monopoly. 

Like I said, when I have more money I will want to buy better produce and support the better practices. My lack of choice does not equal my condoning the bad practices that take place.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> Life feeds on life. Plants "don't want to be eaten" either. And I doubt a bird doesn't "want" to fail at munching seeds-- some of which, the 'failures', end up dispersing these seeds, helping the tree.
> 
> Humans require B12.
> And I would love to put a strict vegan (or vegetarian) like you in a place frozen over with shelter and tools for survival, but no food. No vitamins. There are fish under the ice. There are deer in the forest.
> I don't think you're going to find enough berries under a foot of snow, and frozen ground. You might find roots, but eventually you're going to need to kill a deer or eat some fish.
> 
> Are you calling entire peoples, such as the Inuit, immoral? Their diet is largely salmon.
> 
> You are very narrow minded.


eating seeds, fruits, nuts do not even hurt the plants.
its been showed clearly that we can live off that no problem.

as for inuits, the matter is so complex
we are not inuits, are you a inuits? as for inuits, if they cant change of environments, they have no choice but to kill to survive. 

but they have no choice, you will tell me. I'm not sure about that.  if someone has no other choice but to kill in order to survive and cannot decide to move to a better environment, the matter is a bit different. but if one decide to stay in his environments which force him to kill to survive BUT could move to a place where he could live off plants and stop the killing, the matter is again different and his choice is to be questioned. 

as for africans starving to death, they can kill what they want. they have no choice and cannot find alternatives.
When I speak in this forum, i dont talk to inuits, poor africans, I speak to the rich population who buy meat and encourage the worst industry in the world voluntary, without even looking for alternatives and the excuse you guys make is false. you guys dont eat meat because its needed in your diet, its because you like the taste of meat. if meat tasted like shit, im sure even if we were told its needed in our diet, we wouldnt buy meat anymore. the number one cause why people eati meat in our rich society is because we like the taste.


----------



## Ninae

-=SS=- said:


> Sorry Ninae but you are talking out of your arse.



The problem for most is that they don't know anything about cooking or nutrition. What most live off is hardly nutritious and not exactly high-cuisine. And drug-addicts, who tend to feed themselves on potato-chips and chocklate, are even worse than most.

And there is not much energy in a sausage compared to what living plant-matter can give you. Most can't afford pure, newly-killed, high-quality meat. A sausage isn't much petter than potato-chips. The intestines of an animal mixed with milk and spices. Sounds wonderful. Enjoy burgers, kebabs, and hotdogs.

(The intestines of an animal includes what's in them too. They don't drain them before they're killed).



-=SS=- said:


> As I've stated I don't agree with the suffering of animals in the food production process but it's something I have zero control over. And I'm not going to make my life more difficult and punish myself for something I had nothing to do with in the first place.



Of course it's not something you have direct control of. But like I said it's something you can influence by being one of many who takes a stand against it.



-=SS=- said:


> Besides, what about us? You think we're not being farmed by the establishment? Cities are basically concrete factories to milk humans of their time and energy. Don't see much complaint about that these days..



Like I said, the way we continue to treat animals gives us the karma for this.


----------



## murphythecat

yes, we clearly are the only species who treat the animals like we do.
by far the most cruel animal on the planet is us because we have the choice to not do so, yet we still do so.
other animals are in survival mode. they cannot take the time to ponder about their diet, we can adn we must.


-=SS=- said:


> Sorry Ninae but you are talking out of your arse. How about the simple truth that we _are_ animals living in a terrestrial aquarium where we require nourishment by consuming other living entities. That is what biological life is. One eating another, the transmutation of energy upwards to more complex and refined forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animals farm other animals, we're not the only species that does it. If the animal is treated well and ensured a comfortable existence in exchange for its produce or flesh, how is it any different to any other symbiotic relationship in nature. The animal gets a good existence, gets fed, gets a safe environment to roam around in (obviously industrial practice fails here). Proper farming gives the animals ample freedom.
> 
> Besides, what about us? You think we're not being farmed by the establishment? Cities are basically concrete factories to milk humans of their time and energy. Don't see much complaint about that these days..
> 
> And despite our pretense at being the 'top dog' it would shock most people to learn we are in fact being farmed by another species, we just can't perceive them with our senses. I wish I could prove that point to people but unfortunately I can't, but I'm certain it's the truth. Not talking about reptilians or anything here, you wont find it printed anywhere. We have our own essence that is valuable to a species higher than us on the chain and the milking takes place most days for people. But no one complains about the process, in fact we revel in it *hint*.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you claim to know gods intentions on the matter? I assume you're joking, you don't strike me as a religious person.
> 
> As I've stated I don't agree with the suffering of animals in the food production process but it's something I have zero control over. And I'm not going to make my life more difficult and punish myself for something I had nothing to do with in the first place. Forcing me to adapt to toxic circumstances only breeds more toxicity for myself and those I interact with. The problem is squarely on the greedy fucktards in business and government who know exactly what the facts are and continue to force an industry on us we can't change. They undercut the legitimate sources of food and sell us stuff they ripped off from other businesses. Tesco's (UK supermarket) routinely tries to fuck farmers over by undercutting/asking for a stupidly low price on food. I know how they think, and it was confirmed by someone I know who worked in their head office. The supermarkets and industrial processers have a monopoly.
> 
> Like I said, when I have more money I will want to buy better produce and support the better practices. My lack of choice does not equal my condoning the bad practices that take place.


----------



## What 23

So you are comfortable basing your entire system on something you likely can't continue yourself without the help of others? Can you synthesize vitamin b-12? Are you a chemist? Have access to growth chambers for chlorella and the means of breaking their protective layers so you can eat it?

I'm not arguing that factory farms and our system... Our entire consumer way of life is littered with "bad karma", that is piling on. 

Anyways, you're basically saying that I should depend on other humans and pay them according to a system that is with all of that bad stuff. My bottom philosophy is going to rely on what I can do alone, or reasonably with the help of those around me, off of what comes naturally to the earth. For me, I know how to get what I need, but I don't know how to synthesize vitamins... And I'd prefer eating salmon anyways. Grub worms might pack a good load.

Basically, I don't want to be any more dependent than I have to be on a system that confines me to that system. I want to reduce my dependence. That is where my philosophy lies. Or, that is a true north direction. To have in mind.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> So you are comfortable basing your entire system on something you likely can't continue yourself without the help of others? Can you synthesize vitamin b-12? Are you a chemist? Have access to growth chambers for chlorella and the means of breaking their protective layers so you can eat it?
> 
> I'm not arguing that factory farms and our system... Our entire consumer way of life is littered with "bad karma", that is piling on.
> 
> Anyways, you're basically saying that I should depend on other humans and pay them according to a system that is with all of that bad stuff. My bottom philosophy is going to rely on what I can do alone, or reasonably with the help of those around me, off of what comes naturally to the earth. For me, I know how to get what I need, but I don't know how to synthesize vitamins... And I'd prefer killing... And eating salmon anyways.


what, B-12 vitamine is the new way of our society to legitimate the need of meat in our diet? never heard of b-12. and ive been living off meat for 2 years and im all good. actually, I evidently look much younger and healthier then most 27 years old.

im not sure I follow your logic here. if you were alone, in nature, good luck killing any animals. you would need tools which you dont have, so you would eat nuts, seeds and fruits.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> and ive been living off meat for 2 years



Hah that's nothing. I've been a vegetarian since I was a teenager and both of my sisters stopped when I did. Also, I'm still alive and well.

I didn't need to be a Buddhist to become a vegetaran, it was more inherent.

But, yes, I still get id'd for alcohol and probably will for some time (the lack of sun also helps).


----------



## What 23

You don't even know what b12 is and you are arguing this... Google. If you have only been off of meat for 2 years and eat anything that is processed or fortified (almond milk? Orange juice? Did you say you ate eggs?)... Well one it takes many years up to 20+ for many people to show any big signs of deficiency. We supposedly store a lot from our mothers. Two: eggs have it, and so do fortified drinks and foods. 

I spent my childhood finding and sharpinging sticks preparing for a great war. Had I been really hungry or had that been the way of life Im sure I would have hunted with them. It is instinct to hunt. 
I didn't naturally gravitate to synthesis of white powders. I didn't make microscopes. I didn't have access to various purified raw materials. But I was frequently within yards of rabbits, squirrels, birds. I could walk 20 minutes and catch a fish. All of this can be done with tools that any human can fabricate. Even their bare hands. Again, I don't possess the skill, and if I did, it could be forgotten, to synthesize vitamins in a lab. But even chimpanzees have been observed sharpening sticks, as weapons for hunting.

I base my direction here.

B-12 is necessary to many of our functions. Our brains don't develop or function right without it. We need it for creation of red blood cells, and a number of other things. It can only be found in, viably, animal sources.


----------



## murphythecat

there, you said it. you dont need meat to have B-12.
about the instinct to hunt. good luck if you only have a stick.
how will you eat the meat, raw? remember, naturally, you dont have fire.


What 23 said:


> You don't even know what b12 is and you are arguing this... Google. If you have only been off of meat for 2 years and eat anything that is processed or fortified (almond milk? Orange juice? Did you say you ate eggs?)... Well one it takes many years up to 20+ for many people to show any big signs of deficiency. We supposedly store a lot from our mothers. Two: eggs have it, and so do fortified drinks and foods.
> 
> I spent my childhood finding and sharpinging sticks preparing for a great war. Had I been really hungry or had that been the way of life Im sure I would have hunted with them. It is instinct to hunt.
> I didn't naturally gravitate to synthesis of white powders. I didn't make microscopes. I didn't have access to various purified raw materials.
> 
> B-12 is necessary to many of our functions. Our brains don't develop or function right without it. We need it for creation of red blood cells, and a number of other things. It can only be found in, viably, animal sources.


----------



## What 23

Yes, you can get it from milk and eggs. These still require some level of control over these animals. Hens don't just not care when eggs are taken. And I'm allergic to milk anyway, and at any rate it isn't very healthy for people. Eggs, I've been wanting to try them again. Last time I felt horrible.

It is instinct to eat. Part of why we are human, even why we have our complex languages, may be due to hunting behaviors.

Fire is something that I can make in more traditional ways. Everyone can be taught to build a fire. Synthesis of vitamins is a much trickier process, and much more involved. It requires knowledge of many processes, including proper storage for raw materials, continued availability of metals, glass, plastics...

You underestimate humans and their hunting with "sticks" (my sticks could have killed a human, or deer) and spears ability. Jesus.


----------



## murphythecat

of course we have to eat, but you dont have to kill animals to survive.

but you had good tool like knives to make your stick sharp. otherwise, if I were to put you, without any tool, in nature...

yes, you have to be shown how to make a fire, otherwise good luck making fire. 

all we have in our society is learned and worst it gives us the illusion that for our only benefit, our health, we can do the most immoral things. worst, we dont even have to do it ourselves. we just know that meat get into our supermarket, that weve been told its good for us, scientific articles has been written to legitimate the necessity of that business and voila, we all accept ourselves, buy meat, and come up with all sorts of illogical excuse to eat meat. survival shouldn't be the excuse of such immoral conducts. 

as for vitamins, as far as I know, the synthesis of vitamines isnt hurting anyone. this conversation is about the ethicality of killing animals for our nutriments.



What 23 said:


> Yes, you can get it from milk and eggs. These still require some level of control over these animals. Hens don't just not care when eggs are taken. And I'm allergic to milk anyway, and at any rate it isn't very healthy for people. Eggs, I've been wanting to try them again. Last time I felt horrible.
> 
> It is instinct to eat. Part of why we are human, even why we have our complex languages, may be due to hunting behaviors.
> 
> Fire is something that I can make in more traditional ways. Everyone can be taught to build a fire. Synthesis of vitamins is a much trickier process, and much more involved.
> 
> You underestimate humans and their hunting with "sticks" (my sticks could have killed a human, or deer) and spears ability. Jesus.


----------



## LuGoJ

What 23 said:


> Yes, you can get it from milk and eggs. These still require some level of control over these animals. Hens don't just not care when eggs are taken. And I'm allergic to milk anyway, and at any rate it isn't very healthy for people. Eggs, I've been wanting to try them again. Last time I felt horrible.
> 
> It is instinct to eat. Part of why we are human, even why we have our complex languages, may be due to hunting behaviors.
> 
> Fire is something that I can make in more traditional ways. Everyone can be taught to build a fire. Synthesis of vitamins is a much trickier process, and much more involved.
> 
> You underestimate humans and their hunting with "sticks" (my sticks could have killed a human, or deer) and spears ability. Jesus.



Is there anything you aren't allergic to? Besides meat?


I really don't understand why everyone cares so much about what other people eat. I feel like I can't ever go out to dinner without hearing someone go on a tyrade about how terrible meat is, or how terrible vegan eating is, or how terrible paleo eating is.. or you must eat this! and you must eat that! but you better avoid that stuff over there! I think next time that happens at the table I'm going to grab the person by their collar and place my salad fork my steak knife(depending on if i'm veg or carn that day) at their jugular and tell them to worry about their own fucking plate. Maybe a little salt in their eyes too, while i'm at it.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> scientific articles has been written to legitimate the necessity of that business and voila, we all accept ourselves, buy



People are naive.


----------



## What 23

Sprouted nuts. Certain berries (golden berries). I am still struggling to discover what I can eat. I hit a big roadblock a couple of years ago. 

Murphy... As I child I didn't have a knife. A stick can be sharpened on rocks. And rocks themselves can be broken to make tools. Ever heard of a hand-axe?

Of course, things are taught... But vitamins require professionalism where building a fire doesn't really. Yes it is a skill, but anyone can do it, given time. Making vitamins requires knowledge of materials, solvents, the right temperatures, which require complex instrumentation and industrialization-- electricity. 

Basically I am basing my true north on what could continue to exist without higher, wide spread powered human technology. If it came down to it, although cooked meat is preferred, humans can eat raw meat. And raw fish. I find it foolish to base myself, my ethics from what I have to exchange money for.


----------



## murphythecat

simply because that industry have to stop. its a fucking hell for those animals.

fact is, anyone who buys meat encourage that industry and if we were to stop buying meat, that industry would die.


LuGoJ said:


> Is there anything you aren't allergic to? Besides meat?
> 
> 
> I really don't understand why everyone cares so much about what other people eat. I feel like I can't ever go out to dinner without hearing someone go on a tyrade about how terrible meat is, or how terrible vegan eating is, or how terrible paleo eating is.. or you must eat this! and you must eat that! but you better avoid that stuff over there! I think next time that happens at the table I'm going to grab the person by their collar and place my salad fork my steak knife(depending on if i'm veg or carn that day) at their jugular and tell them to worry about their own fucking plate. Maybe a little salt in their eyes too, while i'm at it.



what23: maybe stop thinking what YOU need and think about what the animals around you need and want.


----------



## What 23

My solution is killing 99+% of human kind.


----------



## Ninae

You first have to mak a difference at the consciousness level for people to stop though. It has to be voluntarily. I know no one can force me to do anything much.


----------



## What 23

murphythecat said:


> what23: maybe stop thinking what YOU need and think about what the animals around you need and want.



I care about animals and life about as much as needed for it to continue, not to say I don't "care" or have empathy. I want balance. I'm actually very gentle with animals, and would be up until the point and even during slitting their throat or driving a knife into their brain/base of their skull to sever their spinal cord or something (to eat).

If it comes down to a meal for my family, or "Think about the deer and what it wants. Think about it's family", or fish, or whatever, I am accepting the gift of my superior place in the food chain and I am eating, with my family. Guiltless.

I eat chicken. It is about the only meat I eat. A raptor would eat me if it could. It wouldn't distinguish me from a little beetle, and it would peck at me, _murdering_ me and eating me. 
I don't owe the chicken anything like not eating it because it doesn't want to be eaten, but I am really thankful to God for the meal. I owe myself respect, so I buy organic, and free range, from farms that I can trace. And respect for myself translates to more respect for them.


----------



## murphythecat

or rather stop making babies





What 23 said:


> My solution is killing 99+% of human kind.



and I understand what you mean what23, but our liberty stop when our desire limit or destroy the desire of others.


----------



## ebola?

b-12 can actually be acquired through some plant-based sources, eg algae.  However, just to be safe, I supplemented with b-12 when I was a vegan.  I have no problems ingesting synthetic things.  I use msg as a table-seasoning, lol.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

This "superior place in the foodchain" stuff is more something that's been invented to appeal to our egos and defend the meat industry.


----------



## murphythecat

maybe we should simply look at the consequence of killing another being. all the feeling oyu need to have to make that action. lack of compassion, ego centricity, lack of love. you have to step on a lot of moral qualities to be able to kill.
for me, killing is not a option, absolutely bad, for me, and for the thing I kill. I cannot accept myself killing things anymore, I just cant. more then that, I want to protect life and id rather loose mine then destroy life for my own benefit. 





What 23 said:


> I care about animals and life about as much as needed for it to continue, not to say I don't "care" or have empathy. I want balance. I'm actually very gentle with animals, and would be up until the point and even during slitting their throat or driving a knife into their brain/base of their skull to sever their spinal cord or something (to eat).
> 
> If it comes down to a meal for my family, or "Think about the deer and what it wants. Think about it's family", or fish, or whatever, I am accepting the gift of my superior place in the food chain and I am eating, with my family. Guiltless.
> 
> I eat chicken. It is about the only meat I eat. A raptor would eat me if it could. It wouldn't distinguish me from a little beetle, and it would peck at me, _murdering_ me and eating me.
> I don't owe the chicken anything like not eating it because it doesn't want to be eaten, but I am really thankful to God for the meal. I owe myself respect, so I buy organic, and free range, from farms that I can trace. And respect for myself translates to more respect for them.


----------



## What 23

I don't agree, although there are many microbes who may be "superior". It is perception... But humans are apex predators. ...Without getting into possible entities we can't see feeding on things in ways that aren't obvious to most.

Ebola... Only chlorella that I know of has B-12 in a form that is usable by our bodies. Spirulina is not the right form. Tests will show someone has the right levels, but they are misleading. It is a "pseudo" b-12. It plugs in the same way but actually blocks the use of the stuff we need. And chlorella needs its cell wall to be cracked, and is hard for some to digest. As well, it is a very complicated process, start to finish, requiring controlled environments, right levels of this and that... It is just more than people are individually capable of, in most cases. Not to say this would always be the case. But it is still high tech to maintain.

I don't know of any larger algae that produce usable B-12. The only one I know of is single celled chlorella.


----------



## LuGoJ

murphythecat said:


> simply because that industry have to stop. its a fucking hell for those animals.
> 
> fact is, anyone who buys meat encourage that industry and if we were to stop buying meat, that industry would die.
> 
> 
> what23: maybe stop thinking what YOU need and think about what the animals around you need and want.





It seems rather unrealistic to expect people to stop consuming meat much like it is unrealistic to expect people stop doing drugs and drinking. I agree, in a perfect world it would be nice if we didn't kill animals but I really can't see it happening.

May as well stop purchasing illegal drugs or any black market products all together if you worried about the pain and suffering of life, a lot blood spilled when it comes to black markets.

Perhaps one day they will be able to breed animals that stay in a permanent sleep, that only sit there like a vegetable and grow, completely unaware of their surroundings or whats going on. That could be a happy medium.


----------



## Ninae

Well, you could also say we are the guardians of all life on the planet, and don't just have the liberty to do as we please. 

And we expect a god that looks out for us why? It's not like we look out for the life-forms below us. Why would God care more about a human being than an animal? It's not like we're that different. I wouldn't vote for humans to have special priviliges.

So the way animals are treated is fine but our conditions in life are enough to turn against God?


----------



## What 23

I think we are part of God. God doesn't just create. God destroys also. Humans are probably the most destructive species on earth, and have been for longer than they were human. I'm open to being corrected... But with our nukes we can what, light the earth on fire 11 times? Pretty powerful. But I also think we have the potential to create what we destroy, and more. Potential.

Guardians would be an ideal, but I think we may become that because we realize we must guard it from ourselves. We are, after all, a most destructive force, and this is for a lot of part inevitable, and is pretty much our nature.

God would definitely care more about a human than an animal. A human can build Gods temple. A human can become like God. A human has hands, that can create, and manipulate. A human can be a shepherd. Can plant seeds where seeds wouldn't normally grow. God manifests uniquely through humans. Without humans, life on or from Earth is finite. With humans, it tempts a little more than that... Even while we may destroy life here.

A human can love God.
A human can forgive.


----------



## murphythecat

LuGoJ said:


> It seems rather unrealistic to expect people to stop consuming meat much like it is unrealistic to expect people stop doing drugs and drinking. I agree, in a perfect world it would be nice if we didn't kill animals but I really can't see it happening.
> .


lets just take one subject at a time 

Im only talking to you. you should stop eating meat. and should inform everybody to do so and explain why.



What 23 said:


> I don't agree, although there are many microbes who may be "superior". It is perception... But humans are apex predators. ...Without getting into possible entities we can't see feeding on things in ways that aren't obvious to most.


Im not apex predator and all humans arent alike. clearly this conversation shows that.
you only can change your behavior. about the entities feeding off you, you cannot do shit. well you can, and only once you will, those entities wont be able to feed off you.


----------



## What 23

Alright, I'm done. I've had enough arguing with vegans/vegetarians who think I need to change my diet because its murder and feelings and stuff for the day.


----------



## Ninae

I won't deny any predatory qualities. I'm pretty fierce on the intellectual level, I have the killer-instinct. The thing is it can be channeled in different ways.


----------



## murphythecat

you mean, you wouldnt be a human if you were all loving, peaceful and happy. true that, you would have never been a human in the first place.
now, if you want to defend the great nation of human beings and defend bad behavior simply by saying, its human nature...
lets just say that I think that we must go beyond our human nature and contact a truly higher form of consciousness based on love, compassion, mindfulness. 





What 23 said:


> Humans didn't get here by being hippies.


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae said:


> Well, you could also say we are the guardians of all life on the planet, and don't just have the liberty to do as we please.



Ninae you're projecting and making grand assumptions, making us incredibly important/self-aggrandizement. It's a human trait, we're guilty of doing it a lot, because we don't like to think we're just pawns in someone elses game, as opposed to being some mighty important organism. Did you consider that maybe we're pawns in natures game, and that nature really doesn't care.. that it's just running like any operating system and we're just one bit of software in the overall scheme.

Your part about high quality meat vs sausages etc. I eat what my budget allows (£30 max a week/student), which includes a whole chicken, mackerel, mince meat, plus lots of veg and bits. The worst I eat is dark chocolate. Again, if I had a salary as opposed to being a poor student I would buy top shit.. it's the one thing I'm prepared to shell out on with my money.

The problem of nutrition doesn't end with meat. The mineral content of plant based food has been declining for a long time because, again, industrial process/rapid urbanization requiring quantity over quality. We've absolutely raped the topsoil with poor agricultural practices. I don't hear many vege's or vegans talking about _that_. When you buy your veg do you know that it's not contributing to this destruction that will eventually cause serious problems for our species and others?...



			
				Murphythecat said:
			
		

> yes, we clearly are the only species who treat the animals like we do.
> by far the most cruel animal on the planet is us because we have the choice to not do so, yet we still do so.
> other animals are in survival mode. they cannot take the time to ponder about their diet, we can adn we must.



And we're not in survival mode? We're barely out of the jungle. Don't let technology blind you. Life has changed a lot in 100 years but we're still learning how to care for ourselves and each other. Part of getting ourselves sorted will include fixing all the issues we create, industrial processes being one of them, but we have to remedy ourselves first and foremost. It's like immigration in the UK.. we have to fix our nation first before we invite more people in otherwise we will all sink together. 

I'm not going to tie myself up in knots over animal suffering when the most direct root to solving that problem is fixing _us_ first. As with most of our problems. Simply forcing one self or others to not eat meat is not fixing the underlying psychological problems that give rise to the suffering in the first place. It's like whack-a-mole to me.. you have get to the root cause and unplug the fucking machine as opposed to batting them down haha.

Other animals farm. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. It's symbiotic. The thing we're doing wrong is causing strife for animals when it can be avoided. The milking and killing for flesh is not in itself wrong.


----------



## Ninae

What 23 said:


> I think we are part of God. God doesn't just create. God destroys also. Humans are probably the most destructive species on earth, and have been for longer than they were human. I'm open to being corrected... But with our nukes we can what, light the earth on fire 11 times? Pretty powerful. But I also think we have the potential to create what we destroy, and more. Potential.
> 
> Guardians would be an ideal, but I think we may become that because we realize we must guard it from ourselves. We are, after all, a most destructive force, and this is for a lot of part inevitable, and is pretty much our nature.
> 
> God would definitely care more about a human than an animal. A human can build Gods temple. A human can become like God. A human has hands, that can create, and manipulate. A human can be a shepherd.



When you look into an animals eyes you can feel a much higher consciousness. More comparable to a human in its childhood state of life. Animals are more of God but the human soul is further evolved and has the power to do more on earth. 

And I don't think God cares more about humans than animals. Just like he doesn't care less about humans than the many life-forms higher than us. "God smiles upon even the smallest insect". I imagine the difference would be irrelevant to him. Like the difference between a spider and a cow doesn't mean all the world to us.

God doesn't care any less about humans than angels. Even the ones who have never left heaven and remained in ther pure divine state. That's how much God loves humanity.


----------



## ebola?

what 23 said:
			
		

> It is a "pseudo" b-12. It plugs in the same way but actually blocks the use of the stuff we need.



It was my understanding that cyanobalamin readily metabolizes to more useful analogues in the body, though the rate and overall efficacy of such metabolism is currently under debate, but it's pretty likely that cyanobalamin is perfectly fine for people without compromised liver-function.




> I don't know of any larger algae that produce usable B-12.



Yes, I was thinking specifically about unicellular algae.



			
				SS said:
			
		

> I don't hear many vege's or vegans talking about [mineral depletion of soil].



What are you talking about?  I have, often.  I suspect that you actually interact with a paucity of vegetarians.  This was a very common topic on a vegetarian message board I was involved in.  But anyway, average mineral content is currently fine, and such nutrients aren't difficult to obtain if one eats many legumes.



> When you buy your veg do you know that it's not contributing to this destruction that will eventually cause serious problems for our species and others?...



This point is moot, as we need to feed our livestock plants in order to sustain them.  This process is highly inefficient and actually ends up using up roughly an order of magnitude greater agricultural output than plants farmed for food directly.

And again, just because someone tries to reduce harm in one respect doesn't entail that they must do so in every respect for it to be worthwhile.



> you have get to the root cause and unplug the fucking machine as opposed to batting them down haha.



It's not like these strategies are mutually exclusive.

ebola


----------



## ebola?

Ninae said:
			
		

> This "superior place in the foodchain" stuff is more something that's been invented to appeal to our egos and defend the meat industry.



It's based on a misunderstanding of what the "food chain" describes.  Scientifically, it is a _description_ of how energy flows throughout ecosystems, but people sometimes treat it as a _prescription_ for what organisms should do.  Instead, because we are human, we have a lot of choice in what we eat and how it's mediated culturally.  Ergo, insofar as people feel inclined, they can approach production and consumption of food on ethical terms.  The "food chain" doesn't offer guidance except in illustrating how varied humans' diets have been over time.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

I agree we're not divinely mandated to be at the top. We're not like Prince Charles awaiting his crown. We're more like the rich exploiting the poor. They do because they can. It doesn't make it right.


----------



## murphythecat

couldnt have said it better.
the argument that some do when they say its the food chain or its human nature is simply false.
we, contrary to many animals, are able to make moral choice. since we can, if we dont, we are doomed.





ebola? said:


> It's based on a misunderstanding of what the "food chain" describes.  Scientifically, it is a _description_ of how energy flows throughout ecosystems, but people sometimes treat it as a _prescription_ for what organisms should do.  Instead, because we are human, we have a lot of choice in what we eat and how it's mediated culturally.  Ergo, insofar as people feel inclined, they can approach production and consumption of food on ethical terms.  The "food chain" doesn't offer guidance except in illustrating how varied humans' diets have been over time.
> 
> ebola


and SS, theres a lot of thinkgs wrong in killing. if you dont see it, invest more time thinking about the action of killing


----------



## Ninae

As for Prince Charles, at least it's part of his destiny, humans versus animals is not.


----------



## LuGoJ

murphythecat said:


> lets just take one subject at a time
> 
> Im only talking to you. you should stop eating meat. and should inform everybody to do so and explain why.
> 
> 
> Im not apex predator and all humans arent alike. clearly this conversation shows that.
> you only can change your behavior. about the entities feeding off you, you cannot do shit. well you can, and only once you will, those entities wont be able to feed off you.



I still enjoy it too much to stop eating it. When the smell of bacon comes through the room.. man.. I feel like i'm 20 again, senses alert, eyes wide.. a sudden jois de vive. I imagine it's similar to someone that purchases black market goods, fully knowing there is usually organized crime and human suffering attached to it.  We say "oh that's terrible, absolutely horrible what those people go through!".. yet as soon as that 8 ball gets tossed on the table.. all bets are off. 

Plus, my wife started making our cat's food at home so we always have leftover chicken parts like wings etc that the cat can't eat. I would hate to throw that out.. our cat would probably kill me in my sleep if he knew I was throwing out chicken.


----------



## Ninae

Try eating cold hotdogs as opposed to cold boiled carrots or broccoli mixed with creme fraiche and salt/pepper. 




LuGoJ said:


> I still enjoy it too much to stop eating it. When the smell of bacon comes through the room.. man..


----------



## LuGoJ

I like raw broccoli and carrots, no need to put anything on them for me!


----------



## Erikmen

murphythecat said:


> or rather stop making babies
> 
> and I understand what you mean what23, but our liberty stop when our desire limit or destroy the desire of others.



Very good


----------



## Ninae

Animals shouldn't have to suffer because we can't be bothered to cook.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Why should plants be allowed to suffer?


----------



## Ninae

Plants have been given to us as we need to have something to eat. Or what would you suggest? There's not anything that causes les suffering and plants have a limited life anyway.


----------



## murphythecat

One Thousand Words said:


> Why should plants be allowed to suffer?


they shouldnt either. 
however, the physical pain when killed is evidently much less pronounced in plants then in animal.


----------



## Ninae

Plants don't have a nervous system like we do. And fish don't have much either. In fact, why not start out by only eating fish, if you're so concerned about nutrition, etc.

If there was any empathy involved at all and not all this "I would love to but I simply can't" etc.


----------



## ebola?

> Plants have been given to us as we need to have something to eat. Or what would you suggest? There's not anything that causes les suffering and plants have a limited life anyway.



Don't worry: he was just making a (overplayed, drastically tired out) joke.

ebola


----------



## LuGoJ

So, murphythecat.. I answered your question, care to answer mine? 

Do you purchase or consume any black market substances or other goods that has ties to organized crime? I imagine you consider anything that is related to organized crime disgusting as killing animals, correct?

(don't get me wrong, what you do is your own business, i'm not going to judge your answer. I'm just curious if your compassion for humans is as strong as your compassion for animals)


----------



## -=SS=-

ebola? said:


> Instead, because we are human, we have a lot of choice in what we eat and how it's mediated culturally.  Ergo, insofar as people feel inclined, they can approach production and consumption of food on ethical terms.  The "food chain" doesn't offer guidance except in illustrating how varied humans' diets have been over time.





			
				Murphythecat said:
			
		

> and SS, theres a lot of thinkgs wrong in killing. if you dont see it, invest more time thinking about the action of killing



Both these points are connected. There is nothing wrong with killing. Philosophically I have spent just as much time thinking about it, and murder, and death, as I have a variety of other topic areas. There is simply nothing wrong with killing. That doesn't mean you should go out and kill a whole bunch of people for no reason, or shoot loads of animals in the head because its a "sport". If you have rats running around your house you're going to fucking kill them. I did just that in my last student house. They are just as much of an animal as a pig, horse, cuddly baby donkey or what have you, but why should I have a 'ethical' conniption fit over killing them? If I don't I'm liable to get a disease and get ill or fucking die.

So what is the difference between killing a rat so you don't get ill and die.. and killing an animal for food consumption? None what so ever. Both are animals. Both deaths serve a practical purpose to ensure the continuation of my being. Killing for pleasure or sport is an entirely different matter. I took no pleasure in seeing the dead rat mashed up by the trap, pretty brutal way to die.. but I'd rather it died than him pissing and shitting all over my food.

You would do the same if an animal threatened your life, or your families life. *Or another human if need be.* I know I would (sorry PC Britain, I'm not waiting on the police). And there would be no reason to feel guilty about killing them either. Like I suggested before, we're shielded from death and it has made us really pathetically soft. If some idiot gets drunk and throws himself in front of my car it would shock me, but again I'm not going to have a panic attack because my car ran over some moron and I killed him.


----------



## ebola?

You still haven't made a particularly compelling case against reducing the suffering of perceiving beings as a valid ethical end.  In fact, to go forward, you may need to put your current preferred system of ethics and entailed assumptions on the table explicitly.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

-SS- are you always on a ego-high?

I just ask, as I've had some correcting experiences. Like, I didn't use to have any time for Christianity, but I looked upto Peter Deunov who taught an unique form of spirituality. Then one day I read he only had one goal throughout his life, to become as much like Christ as possible, and I thought if he was good enough for him he had to be good enough for me. But it takes some humility to go through changes like that.

Also, what is your DOC?


----------



## murphythecat

hi
its not related really to our conversation.
I dont buy much drugs anymore, only the RC's market and cactus is legal where im from. the only thing I still buy is weed and shroom.
if you think the weed and shroom market create as much suffering as the million of animal killed every day to feed us, Id have to disagree! I live in canada, where weed is not very crime related either. 





LuGoJ said:


> So, murphythecat.. I answered your question, care to answer mine?
> 
> Do you purchase or consume any black market substances or other goods that has ties to organized crime? I imagine you consider anything that is related to organized crime disgusting as killing animals, correct?
> 
> (don't get me wrong, what you do is your own business, i'm not going to judge your answer. I'm just curious if your compassion for humans is as strong as your compassion for animals)


----------



## What 23

SS said:
			
		

> Like I suggested before, we're shielded from death and it has made us really pathetically soft. If some idiot gets drunk and throws himself in front of my car it would shock me, but again I'm not going to have a panic attack because my car ran over some moron and I killed him.



Agreed.

Ebola? I wasn't aware it was useful. The question alone and non-access to such a thing anyway (controlled conditions and complexity like lab synthesis) in meaningful numbers all around makes it unsuitable as a replacement to me. Plus Spirulina can soak up toxins and tech would be needed to test its safety. And for me, my gallbladder dislikes the stuff for some reason. Could be a slow liver. ...I don't know.


----------



## Ninae

But animals aren't morons who run in front of your car. How do people come up with these arguments? It's not a student meeting.

Compared to animals humans are the morons. But we have found a way to get around that. Or survival for the fittest, which is another thing we pride ourselves on, but aren't really.


----------



## LuGoJ

murphythecat said:


> hi
> its not related really to our conversation.
> I dont buy much drugs anymore, only the RC's market and cactus is legal where im from. the only thing I still buy is weed and shroom.
> if you think the weed and shroom market create as much suffering as the million of animal killed every day to feed us, Id have to disagree! I live in canada, where weed is not very crime related either.




Sure it's related. I wanted to see if you were being a hypocrite by doing business with those that cause pain and suffering to humans. No, I don't believe the dude growing a few plants on your block is causing much pain and suffering to people. That's why I specifically stated black market goods, of which large volumes are generally controlled by gangs or organized crime syndicates.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Ninae said:


> Plants have been given to us as we need to have something to eat. Or what would you suggest? There's not anything that causes les suffering and plants have a limited life anyway.



The life span of plants far exceed that of animals such as a rabbit.

All life is special, you can't pick and choose. Plants react to pleasure and pain, just because they don't purr doesn't make them any less important. If we were to find life on another planet and it was entirely plant based we should treat it just as we would if it was fuzzy and cute.

The universe is one series of suffering acts after the other. Who is to say that the enjoyment 20 people receive from eating steaks from a cow is not greater than the life of the single cow?


----------



## murphythecat

LuGoJ said:


> Sure it's related. I wanted to see if you were being a hypocrite by doing business with those that cause pain and suffering to humans. No, I don't believe the dude growing a few plants on your block is causing much pain and suffering to people. That's why I specifically stated black market goods, of which large volumes are generally controlled by gangs or organized crime syndicates.


but why even try to see if I was hypocrite or not. this issue has nothing to do with me.


----------



## LuGoJ

murphythecat said:


> but why even try to see if I was hypocrite or not. this issue has nothing to do with me.



We are interacting, I always like to size up and get a feel who I am interacting with. Nothing personal.


----------



## murphythecat

id agree about killing plants and I respect that also in my life. im however less prown to talk about that to people who eats plants as clearly, plants are less attached to themselves and when they die, they suffer much less physically. they dont have a nervous system. so to know exactly what a plant feel or dont feel is much harder to understand really.
but no, killing is not okay, even if it makes 20 person happy. a cow doesnt want to die and we shouldnt kill it even though it makes people happy. 


One Thousand Words said:


> The life span of plants far exceed that of animals such as a rabbit.
> 
> All life is special, you can't pick and choose. Plants react to pleasure and pain, just because they don't purr doesn't make them any less important. If we were to find life on another planet and it was entirely plant based we should treat it just as we would if it was fuzzy and cute.
> 
> The universe is one series of suffering acts after the other. Who is to say that the enjoyment 20 people receive from eating steaks from a cow is not greater than the life of the single cow?





LuGoJ said:


> We are interacting, I always like to size up and get a feel who I am interacting with. Nothing personal.


I understand


----------



## One Thousand Words

Perhaps plants are just not whiny bitches who choose not to cry and scream when they die. They might choose to take a Buddhist monk approach and accept their fate better than the fur and scale organisms.

 Killing 20 plants vs killing a single cow, which is worse? 

If you choose to value all life then suicide is the only ethical response. Personally I accept my role in the universe and believe that using the resources surrounding me makes me no less or more evil than a lion who hunts or a vine who chokes another host tree for survival. I don't have to display my bounty in a form of blood lust, but rather take only what I need to survive. I have no moral constraints if this is flesh or plant matter


----------



## thujone

i don't get why some of you are so profoundly obsessed with suffering.  we suffer as humans, and we've all made people suffer intentionally or unintentionally.  what's your deal, really?


----------



## murphythecat

A. A couple of other arguments meat eaters like to throw back on vegetarians is that the
construction of homes and buildings, which vegetarians live in required the displacement of
animals and the killing of insects. Also, that the agriculture of plant foods causes the killing of
insects too. They also argue that the eating of the plants itself is a form of killing.
The displacement of animals is a far less form of violence to killing animals for food. The
development of homes and buildings does cause death to insects, but this is unavoidable as is
accidentally stepping on an ant walking down the street. The difference is the intent. The Buddha
said that there is no ―crime when there is no intent. A vegetarian builder does not intend to kill
insects just as the person walking down the street does not purposely step on the ant. The
consumption of meat, however, is a voluntary choice matter.

It is true that vegetarians do need to kill plants to eat their vegetarian diet, but the point is to
inflict the least amount of violence. Another important point is that there is a huge difference
between killing a plant and killing an animal. Vegetables and fruits are life forms, but they are
not animals, like humans, cows, and chickens. A vegetable does not have a face or a central
nervous system and does not scream in pain.

Many fruits and vegetables can be eaten without harming the plant, including legumes, berries,
nuts, seeds, pumpkins, melons, squash, okra, and others. Another very important point is that
most fruits and vegetables are eaten at the end of their natural life. In fact, fruit trees actually
produce their fruit so that they may survive and produce another tree. If the tree could talk, it
would beg us to eat its fruit. Seriously, when a human or animal eats a fruit, the food travels
down the intestinal tract, along with some seeds. Later, when the human or animal defecates, the
seeds end up back on the ground at a different location. The seeds then produce another tree. The
tree remains alive and by eating the fruit, we are assisting in the production of another tree.
Now when a person eats an animal, do you think the animal had the same wish to be killed and
eaten? Videos of slaughterhouse procedures have graphically shown how the animals feel about
being killed. They are prodded, often with electric shock devices into the slaughterhouse. Once
their throats are cut, they can be seen crying in pain and kicking with all their might to be free.
Gallons and gallons of blood pour out from the cuts. It is quite graphic and would probably need
an ―X rating for violence if it were shown in theatres.





One Thousand Words said:


> Perhaps plants are just not whiny bitches who choose not to cry and scream when they die. They might choose to take a Buddhist monk approach and accept their fate better than the fur and scale organisms.
> 
> Killing 20 plants vs killing a single cow, which is worse?
> 
> If you choose to value all life then suicide is the only ethical response. Personally I accept my role in the universe and believe that using the resources surrounding me makes me no less or more evil than a lion who hunts or a vine who chokes another host tree for survival. I don't have to display my bounty in a form of blood lust, but rather take only what I need to survive. I have no moral constraints if this is flesh or plant matter


----------



## ebola?

thujone said:
			
		

> i don't get why some of you are so profoundly obsessed with suffering. we suffer as humans, and we've all made people suffer intentionally or unintentionally. what's your deal, really?



Okay.  So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?

ebola


----------



## Journyman16

I really don't get why it is seen as evil to kill for food. We live in a fully-inter-related universe where everything connects. If we turn around and say it is somehow evil to kill prey animals we remove them from the web of life. Should we then put them all down because they no longer have purpose? Should we kill all carnivores because they live solely on killing prey?

Each life form has it's purpose, it's niche in the vast web. To impose our fake ethics on the web is to deny Nature. Even if you're a Chrisitan you still have God providing animals for us to eat and use.

To kill inhumanely is wrong, solely because we can do it better. But look out at the world - lions kill by suffocation, hyenas often eat tyheir prey while it is still alive. Wolves, like us, hunt cursorily, so should we wipe them all out for making the prey suffer before death?

Personally I think it is fine to eat animals - but as Humans we should ensure they live good lives and die without knowing about it. The factory farms and some of the practices we see show many humans are lower than animals - maybe we use them for soylent green? :D


----------



## ForEverAfter

I don't think anybody said it was evil.


----------



## What 23

Semantics...


----------



## What 23

“First, to hunt effectively in a group, humans developed language which allowed communication of concepts such as “friend” and “enemy” or “us” and “them”- concepts that serve to justify aggressive actions against others”

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Hunting_Hypothesis

The human gut consists mainly of the small intestines, which are responsible for the rapid breakdown of proteins and absorption of nutrients. The ape’s gut is primarily colon, which indicates a vegetarian diet. This structural difference supports the hunting hypothesis in being an evolutionary branching point between modern humans and modern primates. Buss also cites human teeth in that fossilized human teeth have a thin enamel coating with very little heavy wear and tear that would result from a plant diet. The absence of thick enamel also indicates that historically humans have maintained a meat-heavy diet.[1] Further, Buss looks to Vitamins A and B12, which the body is unable to produce, but are found in meat. The absence of these vitamins in the human body also implies a human dependence upon meat to obtain such vitamins.[1] Finally, Buss notes that the bones of animals human ancestors killed found at Olduvai Gorge have cut marks at strategic points on the bones that indicate tool usage and provide evidence for ancestral butchers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_hypothesis


----------



## thujone

ebola? said:


> Okay.  So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?
> 
> ebola



sustainability.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Semantics...



"I don't think tax evasion is ethical."
"Come on, now: it's hardly _evil_!"
"I didn't say it was."

This is not a semantic distinction, IMO.



> i don't get why some of you are so profoundly obsessed with suffering. we suffer as humans, and we've all made people suffer intentionally or unintentionally. what's your deal, really?



I don't think anybody is obsessed with suffering. This topic of discussion directly pertains to it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't discuss suffering much outside of certain contexts.
I'm hardly obsessed.



			
				thujone said:
			
		

> ebola? said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sustainability.
Click to expand...


I couldn't be bothered dissecting the implications of this, but I don't think you do base all ethical decisions on the sustainability of the human race (if that's what you're suggesting)... If, on the other hand, you're saying that all of your actions are selfish - on an individual level - that cannot really serve the species, can it?


----------



## turkalurk

What a shame, I spent so much time writing my first message that my phone died!  I lost it all!  

Basically, I appreciate the Vegans for their empathy for other forms of life, especially the ones who try not to even step on bugs!  Its a very beautiful high horse! A sight to behold!   But, where would you draw the line?  Do you feel bad at the bacteria you kill when you wash your hands? (personally, I've only considered giving up animals that aren't wild caught, but its still on the list of things I ought to do that may never happen)

I believe in following a middle way through life, and am learning to harness the power of inaction.  I have faith that the World(some may say God) will take care of things in due time.  The way of the World must run its course.  Suffering is an important aspect of our existence as it inspires intelligence.  It motivates our efforts to protect ourselves and the ones we care about from experiencing harm.  Competition reinforces and enhances these evolutionary procedures that develop our intelligence.  Yes, the fittest survive so killing a small amount of a dense population of species actually strengthens and enhances the effectiveness of natural selection and improves the balance of chain of life.  

Someday, the same technology developed for war could lead to the ability to protect the entire world from catastrophic disasters like asteroids.  It could lead to the the spread of life and intellegence(possibly A.I.) across the galaxy.  The suffering life goes through will have allowed one of its many forms to evolve enough intellect to protect its home planet and possibly spread itself to every possible place it can reach.  We have the potential to create a superior kind of intellect which could far out think the human mind.   Without our pain, we would not be what we are now.

I think if an alien civilization was advanced enough to travel here, they would be intelligent enough to respect how precious and rare life is, and would not want to disturb its fragile system. We are heading that direction, but many lifetimes away as a primitive species.  If not, and they are as brutal as us, then must adapt and overcome, and emerge from the fires of conflict with renewed stength and intellect so we can continue to protect our Earth.

In other words, I respect all the varying opinions to varying degrees,  but veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization.  Sometimes, the highest prettiest horse, isn't the most ethical one.  Its not presently a viable option for all humans to stop killing other forms of life. It will only become viable when we develop technology that will make eating flesh obsolete.  We are the top Apex predator.  Chaos would ensue as economies would collapse, and evasive species would destroy entire ecosystems.  

It kind of reminds me of that canadian woman who stopped her car in the highway to let some geese pass.  A motorcyclist and his 16 year old daughter were killed when they slammed into her as she forgot the emergency lights.  Perhaps, Ego is also present in those individuals who are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for the World and powerful enough to mold it into their making.  Its hard for an imaginative mind to accept, because one can only imagine how the World "ought" to be.  We can always imagine a better way to live.   But, who is an individual to decide how the whole should operate?  Nature must run its course; it knows no shortcuts.


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae said:


> -SS- are you always on a ego-high?
> 
> I just ask, as I've had some correcting experiences. Like, I didn't use to have any time for Christianity, but I looked upto Peter Deunov who taught an unique form of spirituality. Then one day I read he only had one goal throughout his life, to become as much like Christ as possible, and I thought if he was good enough for him he had to be good enough for me. But it takes some humility to go through changes like that.



Are you for real? An ego high? I've merely been trying to poke holes in what is a pretty baseless argument put forward by yourself Ninane. You had the audacity to claim that there isn't even a real case for eating meat! And now you're starting to proclaim about this Deunov guy and your own subjective experiences relating to spiritual matters.  



Ninae said:


> But animals aren't morons who run in front of your car. How do people come up with these arguments? It's not a student meeting.



You've missed the point entirely. Of course animals aren't morons who run in front of cars, does that really need to be said. It was a point of comparison to highlight the lack of consistency between your points of argument. I think you might benefit from actually attending a student debate.

I'm sorry, I can not continue to debate against you.


----------



## LuGoJ

-=SS=- said:


> You've missed the point entirely. Of course animals aren't morons who run in front of cars



I think the local deer would beg to differ. They definitely like to run in front of cars here, especially at night. That's more out curiosity though, i believe.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Possums are the same around here. Even PETA condones swerving your car


----------



## LuGoJ

One Thousand Words said:


> Possums are the same around here. Even PETA condones swerving your car



I wonder if they are attracted to the lights like deer are.


----------



## -=SS=-

LuGoJ said:


> I think the local deer would beg to differ.



They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.


----------



## LuGoJ

-=SS=- said:


> They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.



Maybe the deer in the uk don't...


----------



## LuGoJ

-=SS=- said:


> They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.



Maybe the deer in the uk don't...

All i'll say say is that a drunk deer attempting to prance around in a pair of skinny jeans is not a pretty sight.


----------



## Ninae

Well, this has just shown how it's just not possible for vegetarians and non-vegetarians to come to an agreement and the best we can do is tolerate each other. But I don't start disagreements with non-vegetarians unless they deliberately provoke me. I'm just not always in the mood to let them get away with it, especially in a stupid way.

In this day and age I don't know why non-vegetarians don't just leave vegetarians alone as long as they don't say anything to them. The reasons people come up with to try to justify meat-consumption are just not real. The nutrition argument is not true to life, which you'll find it you really learn about nutrition. I'm still alive, and the healthiest times in my life have been when I've lived as a vegetarian health-freak. And most who use that argument won't have a healthy lifestyle to show to, anyway, or even care about it, which means it has nothing to do with reality and makes them a hypocrite. 

But these ideas that "killing plants is as bad" is terrible to come out with for someone who thinks killing animals is completely different to killing a human. After all, animals are much closer to us than the plant kingdom, so I don't even know where that comes from. Like I said, it's just grasping at straws or coming out with the first thing that enters your mind most of the time.


----------



## socko

It's possible to come to an agreement if nobody is angry or has an agenda. This just happens to be one topic where somebody from one side likes to bash the other. What if we categorized life forms by the amount of self-awareness they seem to have? Based on the category, one could choose what to eat. Things like plants have none and would be ZERO while most humans would be a TEN. everything else would fall somewhere in between. Vegetarians would only eat level ZERO life forms while canibals would eat level TEN lifeforms.


----------



## turkalurk

I laid down a simple and logical argument using a known philosophical method for determining whether an idea is ethical.  Veganism has failed the test of universalization.  You said there were no arguments for the eating of meat, yet I have seen no attempts to counter my argument.


----------



## ebola?

> Well, this has just shown how it's just not possible for vegetarians and non-vegetarians to come to an agreement and the best we can do is tolerate each other.



Well, we were having a relatively fruitful exchange earlier in this thread, so there's no reason that discussion now needs to continue to devolve.

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> I laid down a simple and logical argument using a known philosophical method for determining whether an idea is ethical.  Veganism has failed the test of universalization.  You said there were no arguments for the eating of meat, yet I have seen no attempts to counter my argument.


what is your argument? Ive seen a long text not really looking at the reality of the situation we put animals into.

killing animals is cruel. dont you agree?
especially when we know theres other way much more ethical to eat and sustain ourselves, killing animals is simply not the more ethical choice.
lets not talk about aliens  and simply look at the reality. we could sustain ourselves with nuts, seeds, fruits. we kill millions of animal every day and that could be avoided. also, have you ever seen the environmental impact meat farms have? its much much more damaging for the planet to try to feed people with meat.



turkalurk said:


> In other words, I respect all the varying opinions to varying degrees,  but veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization.  Sometimes, the highest prettiest horse, isn't the most ethical one.  Its not presently a viable option for all humans to stop killing other forms of life. It will only become viable when we develop technology that will make eating flesh obsolete.  We are the top Apex predator.  Chaos would ensue as economies would collapse, and evasive species would destroy entire ecosystems.
> 
> It kind of reminds me of that canadian woman who stopped her car in the highway to let some geese pass.  A motorcyclist and his 16 year old daughter were killed when they slammed into her as she forgot the emergency lights.  Perhaps, Ego is also present in those individuals who are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for the World and powerful enough to mold it into their making.  Its hard for an imaginative mind to accept, because one can only imagine how the World "ought" to be.  We can always imagine a better way to live.   But, who is an individual to decide how the whole should operate?  Nature must run its course; it knows no shortcuts.


kant universalism is a great example to defend the stopping of killing animals.
seriously, what you say here make no sense. we are apex predator indeed, and we could use our force for the good of the whole planet. right now, we dont care about no other living beings but humans. if you think this is ethical, I wonder on what basis your ethicality is based upon.


----------



## murphythecat

heres some arguments to stop that b-12 excuse to eat meat:

Q. What about other nutrients that the vegetarian diet does not provide?

A. The vegetarian diet provides all the nutrients a human needs. The only exception is the vegan
who does not eat any animal products could be missing vitamin B-12. This vitamin can be found
in miso (fermented soy paste) and shitake mushrooms. The lacto-ovo vegetarian has no problem
as animal products contain high amounts of B-12.

The cause of nearly all diseases, especially in developed countries, is not the lack of any
nutrients, but rather the excess of too much food and fat. We do not hear on the news of anyone
dying from lack of protein or lack of iron or lack of amino acids. The real problem is too much
food and fat. People in developed countries eat too much fat and protein. The excess iron and
protein leads to the health problems listed above.

An example is vitamin B-12, discussed above. We only need very miniscule amounts of this
vitamin and it is stored in the body. The amount of vitamin B-12 that we need is a very puny one
milligram for every 667 days (almost two years)! Yet, some meat eaters continue to argue that
vegetarians are not getting enough nutrients such as protein and vitamin B-12. If you watch the
news and live in a developed country such as the U.S., ask yourself how many times do you hear
of people dying of scurvy or protein deficiency and other nutrient deficiencies? It just does not
happen. The problem in developed countries‘ nutrition is excess protein and excess fat which has
made heart disease the number one killer in men and women.


What 23 said:


> “First, to hunt effectively in a group, humans developed language which allowed communication of concepts such as “friend” and “enemy” or “us” and “them”- concepts that serve to justify aggressive actions against others”
> 
> http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Hunting_Hypothesis
> 
> The human gut consists mainly of the small intestines, which are responsible for the rapid breakdown of proteins and absorption of nutrients. The ape’s gut is primarily colon, which indicates a vegetarian diet. This structural difference supports the hunting hypothesis in being an evolutionary branching point between modern humans and modern primates. Buss also cites human teeth in that fossilized human teeth have a thin enamel coating with very little heavy wear and tear that would result from a plant diet. The absence of thick enamel also indicates that historically humans have maintained a meat-heavy diet.[1] Further, Buss looks to Vitamins A and B12, which the body is unable to produce, but are found in meat. The absence of these vitamins in the human body also implies a human dependence upon meat to obtain such vitamins.[1] Finally, Buss notes that the bones of animals human ancestors killed found at Olduvai Gorge have cut marks at strategic points on the bones that indicate tool usage and provide evidence for ancestral butchers.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_hypothesis


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization.



Either I don't understand your argument, or you are misapplying Kant's categorical imperative.  Could you please 'unpack' your underlying reasoning?

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity.  My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing.  Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem.  Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population.  Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment.  Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems.   Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution?  For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt.  They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals.  Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective.  Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.

To counter my argument, you would need to show there is enough non-meat food source to support the entire world population without additional farming.  You would have to explain how we would keep ecosystems in check without its apex predator thinning out the numbers.

Like I said, veganism is a beautiful moral high horse.  But, to say that we as humans should not eat meat is naive and short-sighted.


----------



## turkalurk

if I could chose society's methods, I tend to lean on the side of North American tribes who hold similar pantheistic beliefs as my own.  I believe in achieving balance and harmony which can not be done by leaning too heavily on one side of the spectrum.


----------



## turkalurk

One more thing, for most people, the food is dead when it gets to their plate.  Few people actually kill their food.


----------



## thujone

sustainable pasturing exists so it's just cherry-picking to focus on, say, the ops of fast food corporations and say that is representative of all meat consumption.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity.  My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing.  Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem.  Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population.  Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment.  Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems.   Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution?  For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt.  They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals.  Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective.  Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.
> 
> To counter my argument, you would need to show there is enough non-meat food source to support the entire world population without additional farming.  You would have to explain how we would keep ecosystems in check without its apex predator thinning out the numbers.
> 
> Like I said, veganism is a beautiful moral high horse.  But, to say that we as humans should not eat meat is naive and short-sighted.


yes, there is enough non meat food source. and if theres not, we should do everything in our power to augment the production.


lets just focus on morality and ethicality. the practicality and how to make the food revolution is not part of the discussion and cannot be used as a argument to counter vegetarianism. 

violence, killing, taking life of another sentient being is unacceptable especially when there other viable options. 



turkalurk said:


> One more thing, for most people, the food is dead when it gets to their plate.  Few people actually kill their food.


how's that even a argument?


----------



## turkalurk

its not an argument, its an observation.  You keep calling me a killer because I eat what's already dead.  I am not the one saying you ought not be a vegan, in fact, I said it was a beautiful decision to make for yourself, but to push that belief on others without being in a position to know how humanity would become what you want it to be without disrupting balance.  It seems u are quick to empathize with animals, but where is your empathy for the rest of the world?  Where is you empathy for people who choose to believe its ok for them to be human and do what humans have done naturally for tens of thousands of years.  I am not advocating the farming and cattle industry as its an unnatural process that does harm to the environment.  I am also not saying veganism will never be a viable option for the whole world to choose.  I would like to believe that, in time, we will develop the means and the motivation to become or create the ultimate protector of life.  I, too, remain very hesitant about killing animals, especially other mammals because I value their life.  When I was younger I stopped hunting and fishing altogether as I sympathized with the worm I would thread throw a hook.  The problem with empathizing outside of our species is that we have a tendency to anthromorphize by projecting our own feelings and emotions into tje subject of our empathy when we can only assume to know what they are experiencing.  If death is just a return to the source, maybe we are liberating animals from the pain of life's suffering.  I don't have all the answers, but I can reason that neither do you.  I am not telling you how you ought to live your life, so use thay empathy to put yourself in the shoes of the opposition and stop patronizing them.


----------



## LuGoJ

socko said:


> It's possible to come to an agreement if nobody is angry or has an agenda. This just happens to be one topic where somebody from one side likes to bash the other. What if we categorized life forms by the amount of self-awareness they seem to have? Based on the category, one could choose what to eat. Things like plants have none and would be ZERO while most humans would be a TEN. everything else would fall somewhere in between. Vegetarians would only eat level ZERO life forms while canibals would eat level TEN lifeforms.



We will never come to an agreement because we must first agree on the definition of certain things. For instance, we must come to an agreement on what "inhumane" treatment really is. Also, vegetarians and vegans have varying views on when it's acceptable to eat meat. Some say never, fucking eat grass and leaves. Others believe that it's acceptable if it's a matter of life and death. 

That's the beauty of being human though. We don't have to agree on everything in order to get along. Some of my best friends are complete opposites of me politically and ethically. Junkies that lie and steal, something I personally abhor and don't condone, yet we still have the same bond we had when we were 7 years old.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity.



Er, I was asking for clarification, not trying to rebut your argument.  However, your argument that follows doesn't explain or bolster the Kantian point you were trying to make.



> My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing. Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population. Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment. Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems. Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution? For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt. They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals. Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective. Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.



Your argument rests on a couple of flawed assumptions.  It's problematic that:
1.  Farming plants directly tends to be a great deal more calorically efficient than animal husbandry, so rather than our depending on farming meat, its inefficiency tends to exacerbate hunger.  Yes, I guess there are pasture lands that could not be effectively used otherwise (and I'm not saying that they should), but these are exceptional.
2.  You speak as if we actually interact with ecosystems depending on apex predators; rather, we herd animals under highly controlled conditions, and thus without our upkeep, these populations would not exist.  Eg, populations of cows would not swell if we discontinued farming them.  Your argument would make more sense if most of us hunted.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

You call my assumptions flawed but do not adequately address the issues presented.  If we quit killing all the animals we eat, they will continue to survive and reproduce.  Their populations will continue to grow as ours is.  What will we do what we do about our competition for space?  Just look at the deer population in the US after the decline of the grey wolf.

Your rebuttals are weak and baseless.  Barely addresses the issues at large.   There are billions of people eating meat.  Do you honestly believe we could just up and start eating other foods without disrupting balance.  I expected more quality debates.  I lose interest when someone express too much ignorance for me to find it worthwhile to discuss things with them.  If your response does nothing to adequately address the problems and unintended significant consequences of the universalization of such a principle, than it is of little interest to me.


----------



## turkalurk

What if we could use stem cells to grow animal parts without growing the entire animal?  Would this make the vegans feel better?


----------



## turkalurk

Humans like to pretend we are excluded from Nature.  We are nature, we play a significant role in  nearly every ecosystem on this planet.   Our effects our global.


----------



## turkalurk

just to be clear, I am far from attacking veganism.  I am merely defending the choice to eat meat, and saying it can be done ethically.   I think its funny how vagans feel the need to attack a person's choice to eat meat, while claiming moral superiority and an excess of compassion and empathy.  How ironically smug...


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> You call my assumptions flawed but do not adequately address the issues presented.  If we quit killing all the animals we eat, they will continue to survive and reproduce.  Their populations will continue to grow as ours is.  What will we do what we do about our competition for space?  Just look at the deer population in the US after the decline of the grey wolf.
> 
> Your rebuttals are weak and baseless.  Barely addresses the issues at large.   There are billions of people eating meat.  Do you honestly believe we could just up and start eating other foods without disrupting balance.  I expected more quality debates.  I lose interest when someone express too much ignorance for me to find it worthwhile to discuss things with them.  If your response does nothing to adequately address the problems and unintended significant consequences of the universalization of such a principle, than it is of little interest to me.


the animal we kill and eat are not from nature, but from farms. we make sure they reproduce in controlled environments. we dont kill animals to respect the balance of nature. actually, the way we fish has absolutely destroyed the balance of the oceans.
talking about deer here as nothing to do with the conversation and again, the way deer is overpopulated is again due to how we killed their predators. we human have absolutely destroyed the balance of nature, and one of the main reasons is by killing the animals.

do you think we respect the balance of nature with the farms we create? the meat you buy are not from the wild, beside some fish. 

 the meat farms has been showed to have terrible environmental impacts and thus not respecting at all the balance of nature and are much worse then vegetables farms.



turkalurk said:


> just to be clear, I am far from attacking veganism.  I am merely defending the choice to eat meat, and saying it can be done ethically.   I think its funny how vagans feel the need to attack a person's choice to eat meat, while claiming moral superiority and an excess of compassion and empathy.  How ironically smug...



and you have failed to give even one good arguments. AND your the one making the personal attacks.



turkalurk said:


> Humans like to pretend we are excluded from Nature.  We are nature, we play a significant role in  nearly every ecosystem on this planet.   Our effects our global.



We, humans, kill everyday millions of animals, we are part of the nature indeed, and what we do with it is absolutely terrible, inhuman and unacceptable. we are arguably the most violent and cruel animal on the planet and part of that comes from how we treat animal and from the diet we have been following.


----------



## turkalurk

don't underestimate my logic.  I am the type that would rather let grass grow with so all plants can have a fair shot.  What must we do when we farm certain foods?  Clear land of all competing species of life.  We pump out pesticides and alter the genetic make up of our foods in the same way we domesticate our animals.  We rape the ground of the diversity of nutrients.  Where will all these animals live when we keep clearing their lands to support farming for the world's food supply.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> don't underestimate my logic.  I am the type that would rather let grass grow with so all plants can have a fair shot.  What must we do when we farm certain foods?  Clear land of all competing species of life.  We pump out pesticides and alter the genetic make up of our foods in the same way we domesticate our animals.  We rape the ground of the diversity of nutrients.  Where will all these animals live when we keep clearing their lands to support farming for the world's food supply.



if you think that clearing lands is worse then killing everyday millions of poor sentient beings that has lived terrible life in overpopulated farms, malnourished, in sickness and terrible health conditions, I fail to see your logic.


----------



## What 23

Murphy, just gathering some information... Do you make sure to buy all organic and non genetically modified foods?

And you underestimate the effect our mass agriculture has caused.


----------



## turkalurk

I have made know personal attacks.  I have made observations on outlooks  based on the discussion.  I don't see people, i see ideas and opinions.  Some of these are smug, ignorant, naive, compassionate, thoughtful, deep, superficial, etc but as I am human, my ideas and opinions can be all of the above.  I appreciate when other humans call me on my egoism as well, as long as they do it contructively and not as a deflection.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> Murphy, just gathering some information... Do you make sure to buy all organic and non genetically modified foods?
> 
> And you underestimate the effect our mass agriculture has caused.


this conversation is about the meat farms, not about organic food vs not organic food. this could be a interesting new thread to open though.

but if you insist
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/...vironmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
https://woods.stanford.edu/environm...ed-global-meat-consumption-global-environment
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get...oice/social-environmental-impacts-meat-eating


----------



## turkalurk

u fail to see my logic because of ypur own personal biases and short-sightedness.  Farming kills far more animals from sheer pesticides alone.  I don't mean ignorant as an insult I mean it as a lack of knowledge.  Some people don't realize that insects are animals, too.


----------



## murphythecat

if you think you can compare effectively the suffering of the lives of the animals in the farms and the insects being killed in vegetable field, i find it very weird. im not saying that vegetable farms are perfect, but in terms of suffering, its not even comparable.
and again, you are the one constantly making personal attacks.


turkalurk said:


> u fail to see my logic because of ypur own personal biases and short-sightedness.  Farming kills far more animals from sheer pesticides alone.  I don't mean ignorant as an insult I mean it as a lack of knowledge.  Some people don't realize that insects are animals, too.


----------



## What 23

^Yes and companies like Monsanto with their chemicals may be largely responsible for bee die off. The Monarch butterflies which eat one food- milkweed, are now endangered because of sprays designed to destroy it. These are big time pollinaters. What happens when/if they go? 

Goodbye almonds, apples... Lots of stuff.
And food sources for many.


----------



## murphythecat

indeed, organic food is not really organic anymore. Monsanto are controlling every grain out there and they are mostly all modified.


What 23 said:


> ^Yes and companies like Monsanto with their chemicals may be largely responsible for bee die off. The Monarch butterflies which eat one food- milkweed, are now endangered because of sprays designed to destroy it. These are big time pollinaters. What happens when/if they go?
> 
> Goodbye almonds, apples... Lots of stuff.


I fail to see what this has to do with our thread here. 
vegetable farms are much less damageable for the environments then meat farms. so again, it shows clearly howwrong it is to continue with meat farms. its immoral not only for the animals being killed, but also for the environment because its the most damaging industry ,environmentally wise, on the planet 

maybe read those links?
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/t...at-production/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...eat_production
https://woods.stanford.edu/environme...al-environment
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get-...ts-meat-eating


----------



## What 23

I agree things need to be different... That meat farms suck... 
And honestly I prefer my females (disregard how disrespectful that may sound I don't mean it that way) to be at least mostly meat free. They smell better. Or seem to. I don't know. But when I see Heather Graham for instance she just looks... Edible. 
So does this Freelee the Banana girl.




She eats raw until 4 PM then I think she eats something cooked... Vegetable, and fruit. She is basically a frugivore. 
But I don't know if this is sustainable... For everyone. Unless we do a mass radical conversion of the way we live. But I just don't see that as likely at this moment. 
I'm afraid we might have to drive this earth to near extinction to make our move. 

I think that there might be some promise in genetically modified foods, but that is a very broad term, and I don't think the current ones are really to anyone's benefit. Except some greedy people that are experimenting with things they don't fully understand, and on a mass scale, without our consent... They return big profits in cash... 
And we are complacent.

I do wonder though if we are going to have to suffer a huge hit to survive. 
I honestly wish for a culling sometimes. Kill humans. Reduce our population. We are filth. In respects.
We have so much potential.


----------



## turkalurk

I can agree with that one!  Vegan women kick ass!  I love their compassionate and empathetic enthusiasm, and I admire their strength and integrity with such strong conviction!    To each, their own sky regardless of species!  I can dig that utopia!


----------



## turkalurk

ha, that's why I wantes to voice my thoughts.  I would never get this deep with vegans in an offline environment, because I don't want to knock them off such a beautiful horse!  I wouldn't want to make them question themselfs and feel any uncomfortable cognitive dissonance or make them feel less beautiful.  Sorry vegans, just ignore everything I said and carry on without a second thought about it.  I only ask that you lighten up on us morally corrupt meat eaters.  It is our nature, and not all of us possess the will to sacrifice practicality, and the strength to overcome our humanity.


----------



## -=SS=-

That Freelee Banana Girl and her partner are fucking insane dude. I remember coming across them a long time ago. Total nutbars.


----------



## What 23

I think her diet may work for her... But I've seen plenty of criticism. I watch her videos even while knowing such a diet is impossible for me, for various reasons. I can think of other reasons you may have to say that, though.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> I think its funny how vagans feel the need to attack a person's choice to eat meat, while claiming moral superiority and an excess of compassion and empathy.  How ironically smug...



How massively assumptive.

Us and them okay? It makes everything better


----------



## ForEverAfter

^It's revealing how much non-vegans perceive vegan attitudes as an attack.
In other words: I'm not claiming superiority, I'm just saying how I feel.

I think it's wrong to contribute to the meat industry.
I don't think it's wrong to kill animals or eat meat.
This isn't indicative of an excess of compassion and empathy.
The meat industry is pretty fucked up. Look into it.
If you don't want to look into it, remain ignorant.

Nobody on the meat side has yet provided a reasonable explanation as to why it is okay to contribute to the enslavement and suffering of animals, excluding specific situations in which meat is required in order to sustain local populations... We don't need it, so - considering the realities of where it comes from - we shouldn't consume it.

If someone tells you that you shouldn't rape people (or goats), that isn't them being smug or superior: it's just someone expressing their social ideologies... If you want to live in a world where nobody says how they feel, for fear of being labeled smug, then you should avoid internet forums in general...


----------



## swilow

^A good post, and one I am grateful for. There appear to be at least three sides (perhaps more) to this coin. 

Anyone who claims veganism is morally superior has missed the ultimately subjective nature of morality. Obviously, I am a vegan who made the choice solely for himself as a means of trying to substantiate my pre-existing suspicions, that I could live without being exploitative and still be healthy. Its worked for me, but I care not what the rest of you people do  Veganism/vegetarianism is rarely about trying to save lives or create dramatic, revolutionary change; its about trying to make the individual feel better about their life. As a vegan, the impact I have is utterly minimal, in terms of lives saved/carbon footprint/etc. If I was truly on a moral crusade, where I felt my views were more correct then others and that they were views that needed to be imposed due to their 'superior' nature, I would be burning down factory farms and releasing animals from zoo's or trying to create changes in law. As it stands, most vegans do little to promote this diet as morally superior, given the paucity of real world impact most people expect from their veganism and those that do should be confronted with that fact.

Still, I think its a step in a good direction, trying to minimise negative impact on the world.


----------



## What 23

So raping a humans is comparable to eating meat? Or supporting the "meat industry"?

I have suffered for a long time with a very restricted diet, and have tried many things. Pretty much every whole food available, I would say. Chicken works. It is practical. It supplies protein requirements. 
I was 120 lbs before I began to eat chicken. 
I am six feet tall. 
Now I'm a normal weight of 170.

I imagine vegans make a healthy meal. 

I've desired to become a vampire. Suffering daily allergic reactions to food can lead the mind to consider things... Like "can I clone my body and eat it?", along with suicide. Like "what am I supposed to eat? Why am I even holding on?".

And being a vampire. 
Yes, I would eat people, or I'd be okay with being a vampire. I'd gladly reduce the population, and have power. I'd accept the curse. Oh fantasy.


----------



## What 23

The first time I ate non sea meat in years I had a dream that I was driving around with human body parts. At the time I was transporting human body parts, such as bones, skin, hearts, lungs, eyes... 
But I saw the chicken as very close to human. 
I kept eating it.
Fuck all of you.


----------



## turkalurk

yes I don't have know if I have figured the quote button out or not, but yes when you take a select portion of text out of its context and assume its a generalization of all vegans it can seem assumptive.  Vegans do attack and judge others for their diet preferences.  Not all, but some.  I made it very clear that I was only criticising those who held it as a morally and ethically superior position that everyone should uphold.  Its not the same thing as raping a goat.  What a ridiculous strawman.  What it is the same as is: eating a dead goat that was already butchered by another.  I bet if everyone had to kill their own food, there would be more vegans.  

I also want to reiterate that I have said it was a nice philosophy.  I admire it, and the ones who care enough to do their part.  I was not being facetious when I called it a beautiful moral high horse.  I would love to tame such a beast.  But, I am comfortable with my midsized one.   I love the taste of meat, unfortunately, I can't give it up.  I have accepted this part of my humanity to the point that I won't loss my appetite anymore when I am reminded of the animal it once was and what kind of life it had.  ai guess it makes me feel better to know these animals wouldn't have a life at all if we didn't raise them to eat. Anyway, the vegans that do it for their own personal preference without judging others are the kind of people I look up to.  I respect those kinds of vegans/people.

ok i see that was not the quote button, I will try to figure it out next time.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> ^It's revealing how much non-vegans perceive vegan attitudes as an attack.
> In other words: I'm not claiming superiority, I'm just saying how I feel.
> 
> I think it's wrong to contribute to the meat industry.
> I don't think it's wrong to kill animals or eat meat.
> This isn't indicative of an excess of compassion and empathy.
> The meat industry is pretty fucked up. Look into it.
> If you don't want to look into it, remain ignorant.
> 
> Nobody on the meat side has yet provided a reasonable explanation as to why it is okay to contribute to the enslavement and suffering of animals, excluding specific situations in which meat is required in order to sustain local populations... We don't need it, so - considering the realities of where it comes from - we shouldn't consume it.
> 
> If someone tells you that you shouldn't rape people (or goats), that isn't them being smug or superior: it's just someone expressing their social ideologies... If you want to live in a world where nobody says how they feel, for fear of being labeled smug, then you should avoid internet forums in general...



if you don't think killing animals for food is wrong than obviously I wasn't talking about you as I condemned the industry as well.  Its smug to assume you know your way is the right way that everyone should follow.  thats why I don't chop up quotes out of context, it leads to misinterpretation for those who only read the portion you selected to stand on its own.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> yes I don't have know if I have figured the quote button out or not, but yes when you take a select portion of text out of its context and assume its a generalization of all vegans it can seem assumptive.  Vegans do attack and judge others for their diet preferences.  Not all, but some.



As do some meat-eaters to vegans (source: see above), some paleo-diet hipsters to Atkins fiends, so on. There is no point in saying some; it is a given that any ethical system may have proponents who are aggressive and narrow-minded. It just seems like perhaps your consumption of meat makes you feel guilty so you have projected condemnation of your diet onto others. I, as a vegan, do not give a fuck about what you eat, I am concerned with my own ethics and following through my own ideals. Obviously, I think the world would be heaps better if people consumed only free range, sustainably farmed, kindly treated animals, and increased their intake of fruit/vegetables/nuts etc. But I'm not going to impose anything; I don't think that change happens in that way, and a world of vegans would be quite odd. I can live without meat and animal products, but I am well aware that I live in a rich country and have the means to do so. But because I can live without these things, I feel like I ought to. I respect the fact that its not always possible.

I think it is important that we appreciate the lifeforms that are sharing this planet with us. In fact, out intelligence, self-awareness and empathy suggests that we are OBLIGATED to do this. Surely, to an animal that is giving us it's EVERYTHING, we could try and pay-it-forward by giving it some quality of life, some chance to share in what we are all currently sharing anyway.



> I bet if everyone had to kill their own food, there would be more vegans.



Totally agree. I know that I would be unwilling to kill an animal for food if I could otherwise avoid it. 



> I also want to reiterate that I have said it was a nice philosophy.  I admire it, and the ones who care enough to do their part.  I was not being facetious when I called it a beautiful moral high horse.



Dude, when you begin discussing an ethical viewpoint or practise as a "moral high horse" you've already lost much of your audience. That sounds like you just wish to either disparage veganism/vegetarianism or that you don't understand what the real world applications of the term 'high horse'. Because its a negative descriptor and that sort of off-the-cuff remark just points to ignorance of one form or another.

It is true that if everyone went to veganism, mass catastrophe would ensue. But you have to come up with a better reason to inflict sufferring on a fellow animal then 'it tastes good'. That is utterly weak reasoning.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> As do some meat-eaters to vegans (source: see above), some paleo-diet hipsters to Atkins fiends, so on. There is no point in saying some; it is a given that any ethical system may have proponents who are aggressive and narrow-minded. It just seems like perhaps your consumption of meat makes you feel guilty so you have projected condemnation of your diet onto others. I, as a vegan, do not give a fuck about what you eat, I am concerned with my own ethics and following through my own ideals. Obviously, I think the world would be heaps better if people consumed only free range, sustainably farmed, kindly treated animals, and increased their intake of fruit/vegetables/nuts etc. But I'm not going to impose anything; I don't think that change happens in that way, and a world of vegans would be quite odd. I can live without meat and animal products, but I am well aware that I live in a rich country and have the means to do so. But because I can live without these things, I feel like I ought to. I respect the fact that its not always possible.
> 
> I think it is important that we appreciate the lifeforms that are sharing this planet with us. In fact, out intelligence, self-awareness and empathy suggests that we are OBLIGATED to do this. Surely, to an animal that is giving us it's EVERYTHING, we could try and pay-it-forward by giving it some quality of life, some chance to share in what we are all currently sharing anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree. I know that I would be unwilling to kill an animal for food if I could otherwise avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, when you begin discussing an ethical viewpoint or practise as a "moral high horse" you've already lost much of your audience. That sounds like you just wish to either disparage veganism/vegetarianism or that you don't understand what the real world applications of the term 'high horse'. Because its a negative descriptor and that sort of off-the-cuff remark just points to ignorance of one form or another.
> 
> It is true that if everyone went to veganism, mass catastrophe would ensue. But you have to come up with a better reason to inflict sufferring on a fellow animal then 'it tastes good'. That is utterly weak reasoning.



Yes, my food preferences are rarely well thought out.  I eat what taste good to me.  Not a healthy lifestyle, you are right, my moral horse is smaller than yours.  Did you forget I already agreed with as much.  How empathetic of you to rub it in.  

How do you know what suffering I inflict by eating dead food?  How do you know the food I eat suffers at all?  It seems pretty dead to me when I eat it.


----------



## What 23

Well, when you buy a product, you encourage it's production. Therefore, in the case of buying a McDonalds beef patty or something, you encourage suffering, as their supplies come from these crowded factory farms.

Dairy, as well, unless you are really conscientious about what kind of dairy you buy/the source, you are very likely contributing to animal suffering.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> How do you know what suffering I inflict by eating dead food? How do you know the food I eat suffers at all? It seems pretty dead to me when I eat it.



Go visit an abattoir.










If you know that eating meat is wrong and you make no effort to stop doing it, you're causing yourself suffering also. Whether or not you repress the pain is irrelevant. Repressed pain is worse, spiritually, at least, than experiencing much more intense pain head-on (IMO)...

There's not a huge difference between the logic involved in determining that racism is immoral. We have, historically, justified mass-scale wrong-doings in the absence of race equality. Species equality takes slightly more enlightened thinking, in the sense that it is one step removed - again. What I'm saying is: some people, historically, failed to recognize the oneness of the human race; and, now, some people fail to recognize the oneness of the planet... It is in our nature to be skeptical, to re-act based on fear... but it is also our nature to look back - once the fear has subsided - and think about what really happened...

There's clearly a trend towards veganism and eco-friendly lifestyles because we have witnessed the (moral and the practical) ramifications of disregarding and / or mistreating nature.

Note: True species equality is not possible, because of the food chain...
What I'm suggesting is: it should be illegal to mistreat animals, but not to eat them.

And, like I said, the law is trending towards this.
The standards are getting better and better.
They're still awful; it's going to take time.
But, at least, we're getting somewhere.

How do we make a difference, as individuals?

We stop consuming animal products and we voice our opinions; we take personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions; we defend those without voices; we say, "this is wrong"... and the fact that it annoys people (in the same way slave owners were infuriated by outspoken non-racists) is to be expected... People tend to shoot the messenger. There is, more often than no, no tangible reward for a good deed.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:
			
		

> Yes, my food preferences are rarely well thought out. I eat what taste good to me. Not a healthy lifestyle, you are right, my moral horse is smaller than yours. Did you forget I already agreed with as much. How empathetic of you to rub it in.



I said nothing about healthiness or otherwise, and I didn't read your concession anywhere in the post I was responding to. I admit, I haven't read every single thing you have written here, so I apologise if I'm responding to things you have already explained.

See, I'm not making any claims about my own morality. I'm not projecting my own biased fantasy onto a large, diverse, independant group of people who do what they do for many different reasons. Your continued reference to high and low horses is your own problem and focus that you introduced in the first place, this grading of morals and ethics, so please don't bother pretending that I'm also grading beliefs and choices likewise. 



> How do you know what suffering I inflict by eating dead food? How do you know the food I eat suffers at all? It seems pretty dead to me when I eat it.



What exactly is your point? Yes, you are eating dead food. I agree, that is better then its counterpart, but I can't see any other point. If you are saying that I am making an assumption about the origin of the meat you consume; its hard not to think that, as with nearly every other person who eats meat today, your diet does consist of meat farmed in questionable ways because thats the majority of meat available, and you don't seem to have stated otherwise. Note that I think it ridiculous that other sources of ethically farmed meat are not more widespread and most people are unable to truly verify the origins of what they consume anyhow, so its an uphill battle.

I think you can actually eat meat products and avoid inflicting 'great' suffering on animals. To me, its not about the dying; that's inevitable for all creatures and there is a certain nobility in dying so others can live (we on earth are all one extended family anyway, even though some of us have fur or 8 legs), but I am more concerned with the quality of the animals living. Surely you would concede that there is some value in another lifeform being able to experience satisfactorily its distinguishing quality, that of existing, being alive, at least in purely biological terms? Or, maybe put differently, what is the harm in treating animals respectfully and why isn't that one of many priorities? If life is partially about evolution towards intelligence or, at least, geater self-determination, it seems improper to interrupt this directive without doing so with uptmost respect, awareness and compassion.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> How do you know what suffering I inflict by eating dead food?  How do you know the food I eat suffers at all?  It seems pretty dead to me when I eat it.


nuff said.
lol


----------



## What 23

God there is so much stupidity in some of these posts. Eating meat is not wrong. And my family is certainly of higher average intelligence than another's down the street. Maybe less than another. Races are like families. They all may have among them very intelligent people but they are not fucking equal in all respects.

I wish I could turn all of you diversity and all is one (it makes no sense) people into the first life. And man... The worms... Don't they realize they are in unity with bacteria? The snails? We are all ONE! Unity! So heartfelt goodness! And the toads, don't they realize they are the same as the crickets? We are all one and it is all EQUAL!
Fuck. 

The human races, or families, developed in isolation for many thousands of years. They are different. Families are different.


----------



## Journyman16

Just some thoughts on the subject - earlier it was mentioned about eating too much fat - this is not why we have an obesity issue and we need fat in our diets AND our bodies know what to do with it. 15% is the daily minimum we need. The problem is sugars, processed varieties and things like high fructose corn syrup.

There is another elephant in the room as well - while it takes much less land to produce a kg of veggies, fruit etc than 1kg of meat, the normal consideration in how to produce more food involves grains. There is increasing data and evidence that grains are specifically bad for us and that many of our endemic problems come from eating way too much of them. Grain-fed cattle for example, have a much higher fat content than grass-fed. While we have different systems, it isn't hard to consider there may be similar issues with how much we consume, particularly of the processed varieties found in almost all our foods.

Cutting carbs from a diet can give some excellent health benefits, but cutting protein or fat can kill you, quickly.

There are two very different issues being discussed here. One is whether it is a good thing to cut out meat eating, the other is about treating animals badly. Using the one to try to justify the other is not a sound argument. 

If a vegan claims it is ethically better to not kill for food because animals are so poorly treated, then the logical first step would be to improve the treatment of the animals being used. Once the ethics of animal husbandry are improved, we can look at whether we should keep up the practice. 

If a meat eater claims it is fine to eat meat but the animals are being badly treated, then acting to improve their lives is a clear step to follow, and that can be as easy as asking your supplier where the meat came from and how it is farmed. If enough people do that the suppliers will quickly make choices to ensure their customers get what they want. Rogue producers can be reported and fined or even shut down if they fail to adhere to health requirements.

Animals well treated are actually better for us than those that aren't - try a free range chook as compared to a caged chook and you will see the difference. We can influence the food we are offered with our wallets - pay a little more for the good stuff and the shops WILL notice. Failing to note what their customers want affects profits.

Is it more ethical to go vegan? As per my post before, I don't think so - the web of life exists and everything plays a part. But I am damn sure it is not ethical to treat animals so disgustingly and I make efforts to ensure my supplies come from decent places. 

And if we're going to eat animals we should be mindful of them - acknowledge, even if silently, that this beast is contributing to your health by dying and stay aware of it while you eat. Treat eating as a positive experience and focus on it. Don't eat mindlessly while watching TV or performing other activities.


----------



## turkalurk

missing the point, if an animal suffers its over by the time it gets to my plate.  So, I was not the one who inflicted the suffering if it suffered at all.  Maybe the animal was killed instantly.  Its not my responsibility so that guilt belongs with the person who took the life or the company who maintained the inhumane policies.  Does that mean none of you  drive cars because of the harm they do to the environment and all the people that die from car wrecks?

If the alternative for these animals is nonexistence then how do you know they wouldn't choose their life over nothing? I would rather experience a life of suffering than to not exist at all.  Never been one to contemplate suicide.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> God there is so much stupidity in some of these posts. Eating meat is not wrong. I'll stop there.



Since you're an openly racist member of this forum, I find it impossible to engage with you morally.
It's weird to say that eating meat is obviously not wrong, when you clearly don't think racism is wrong.

Eating meat is wrong, assuming that it comes from a source that contributes to the suffering of animals, which it most likely does.

It makes no sense to say "yeah the industry is wrong" but "eating meat isn't"... ?
They're one and the same, practically speaking.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> missing the point, if an animal suffers its over by the time it gets to my plate. So, I was not the one who inflicted the suffering if it suffered at all. Maybe the animal was killed instantly.



Suffering doesn't necessarily happen at the moment of death... Sounds like you're lying to yourself.



> Its not my responsibility so that guilt belongs with the person who took the life or the company who maintained the inhumane policies.



It is your responsibility.



> Does that mean none of you drive cars because of the harm they do to the environment and all the people that die from car wrecks?



The logic isn't quite right. You're only responsible for your own car accidents, assuming they're your fault.
I still drive, unfortunately... I stopped for many years... I know it is wrong, though: I'm not denying that.



> If the alternative for these animals is nonexistence then how do you know they wouldn't choose their life over nothing? I would rather experience a life of suffering than to not exist at all. Never been one to contemplate suicide.



This is an interesting question, although I take it you haven't ever suffered from a horrifying fatal disease that slowly eats away at you or spend more than a decade incarcerated? My point being: there are situations that might change your perspective on suicide... you haven't been an animal bred for slaughter, so you can't really say whether or not it will be more of a tolerable existence than non-existence..

But, like I said, it's an interesting question. I think, personally, I would rather live a life of suffering rather than no life at all... although that is having been born a human and come into suffering very gradually, over a long period of time... rather than being born a chicken into extreme suffering for my entire existence that remains at that level and doesn't change.


----------



## What 23

I think what people tend to blanket with the term "racism", that much of it is perfectly natural, and healthy.

Eating meat is not wrong.

Life is suffering. We can only seek to minimize it. But that doesn't mean making ourselves suffer so much to do so. I mean you can.. That is your choice... But don't ask others to. Say you do things for yourself... Because you feel better this way. Saying it is wrong is just baseless when it gets down to it. You are basing it off of the human condition currently, which is out of balance. It is messed up. Our population is too high, and this is why these big factories/factory farms exist. This is one reason I dislike the mass immigration into resource rich places like Europe. I'd rather my closer relatives have access to this. I'd rather my relatives, who don't have 4 kids per couple like the Pakistanis or Africans might, who have barely replacement numbers of children- my closer relatives, to have access to these resources. Africa's population as a continent will boom this century and where are they gonna go? Probably try to go to Europe. And this will reduce the resources available for those closer to me in time, culture, sound, art, language, Etc. Frankly I'd build a wall if I could and sentries to control borders and keep the place sustainable for my family, or closer family.

Maybe soon we will get lab grown protein, or lab grown perfect food. I don't know.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Stop trying to justify racism.

Eating meat is wrong, assuming that it comes from factory farms and it does.
There isn't enough meat produced otherwise to feed the population.
Therefore, practically, it is wrong.

You can argue that it doesn't have to be wrong, practically.
That we could change the industry. And, maybe we can.
But that doesn't mean it has happened already.

Life isn't suffering, by the way.
Life exists on a spectrum spanning from joy to suffering.
There is a Buddhist saying that is often mistranslated into "life is suffering", but it's not so.



> But that doesn't mean making ourselves suffer so much to do so.



How does letting a controlled number of refugees into your country or not eating meat cause us "so much" suffering? I think I'm missing something, here.


----------



## What 23

Your existence is wrong. Kill yourself.


----------



## ForEverAfter

No thanks... ?


----------



## swilow

What 23 said:


> God there is so much stupidity in some of these posts. Eating meat is not wrong. And my family is certainly of higher average intelligence than another's down the street. Maybe less than another. Races are like families. They all may have among them very intelligent people but they are not fucking equal in all respects.
> 
> I wish I could turn all of you diversity and all is one (it makes no sense) people into the first life. And man... The worms... Don't they realize they are in unity with bacteria? The snails? We are all ONE! Unity! So heartfelt goodness! And the toads, don't they realize they are the same as the crickets? We are all one and it is all EQUAL!
> Fuck.
> 
> The human races, or families, developed in isolation for many thousands of years. They are different. Families are different.



Um... I think you missed the point. Not a surprise. I think Foreverafter's reply to you was great.

Yes, different things exist, but it is humans who created the categorical speciation we see. Diversity is a fact of life on Earth, but we merely observed; we haven't specifically elucidated an objective truth of life, we have only organised it to examine it better. So I mean to say that all lifeforms share commonalities, some more then others. This is a temporal issue too. In essence, despite the fact that life forms on earth appear vastly different to one another in one frame of reference; examined in another, they must be seen as an expression of one essential DNA based language.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Since you're an openly racist member of this forum, I find it impossible to engage with you morally.
> It's weird to say that eating meat is obviously not wrong, when you clearly don't think racism is wrong.
> 
> Eating meat is wrong, assuming that it comes from a source that contributes to the suffering of animals, which it most likely does.
> 
> It makes no sense to say "yeah the industry is wrong" but "eating meat isn't"... ?
> They're one and the same, practically speaking.



I don't think eating meat is inherently wrong.  Like others have said, it is the treatment of the animals involved.  I am from the midwest and the cows don't seem to have it too bad where I'm from.  I admit I am a little ignorant about the actual statistics of how many animals are inhumanely raised.  I don't look into how my meat is treated and maybe I ought to.  Which is why I said I admire the people that have that much moral fiber.  It would seem too exhausting for me.  

I have never seen the overcrowded cattle ranches you speak of.  I see them grazing all over.  Where do all these cows I see grazing go?


----------



## What 23

My point is that my true north includes the fact that I require B-12, and that practically, this is only found in animal sources. Much of what I do here is wrong. Buddha said everything is, but I have to disagree in respects even while accepting that wisdom as certain truth, definitely.

Watch your wording. Why isn't it a surprise? Because I think differently and am not a firm believer in civilization with just anyone? That I don't base my own ethics on what humans can provide, such as vitamins in the form of white powders which require processes and equipment that I may or may not be able to master or create? I KNOW that I can hunt fish, and animals. I know what I as an individual can do, which would allow my survival.

What ultimately is more harmful? Me murdering a chicken to feed my family, or catching fish... Or buying with money something that requires electricity to make, probably a constant flow of it with production figured in....something that is shipped in one of many trucks... Trains.. Plains... Made of plastic the containers, with offgassed particles now I'm swallowing... Right... What is more harmful? 
What is more wrong or right?
I'm saying that by myself, I can hypothetically survive and with that, I would need to eat animals. It is not "wrong". At a basic level, and that matters to me, I need animal products. If that is wrong, then my very existence is wrong.

As for diversity... I like diversity of Europeans as is. Blond, red, brown, light to dark skin and eyes, blue green brown hazel amber eyes. They've got the spectrum. I don't think the traits are only superficial, either. I think attention getting can be good. Sexual signalling perhaps, not that it ends there, why different traits exist as they do. But, flood a bunch of black flowers into a smaller patch of white red and yellow flowers though and you'll have ... You got it... Less diversity in ways. A lot more "black". Less white and others, by proportion. Every other race, largely brown and brown. If White blends in, traits of the White will be less. Just look at most AA-White coupling's children. The negroid traits are very strong, and to me, undesirable much of the time. I'm simply not attracted and don't feel the connection.

I consider Whites to be more "colored" than "brown" and "black" people. 

Don't get me wrong... I've got a little crush on a black girl where I buy my food. I don't really think people or anything is defined by its race, family, Etc... But a cat will often act like a cat. And the frequencies that exist in places differ from others, and this may mean difference in more ways... Difference that may not have translated to Nazis building rockets in the 30s if mass immigration from the "third world", such as SubSaharan Africa would have happened in 1403, and let's say 70% of the genetic code would have come from there instead of central Europe. May not. I kind of doubt it...

My ideas don't imply inherent superiority/inferiority, but Europe/Eurasia was awash for thousands of years with various cultures peoples wars technologies, gradually merging and splitting and merging again... That made it the place it is. Africa was cut off more so. Subsaharan. They didn't even have written language in the South. This is not to say they are stupid... But certainly different. Perhaps not a big place for aviation engineers. I don't know for sure. But trends.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I admit I am a little ignorant about the actual statistics of how many animals are inhumanely raised. I don't look into how my meat is treated and maybe I ought to. Which is why I said I admire the people that have that much moral fiber. It would seem too exhausting for me.



Yes, you ought to.
And saying it's exhausting is a poor excuse.
It's not remotely difficult to seek the truth, if you want to.
It sounds like you're intentionally maintaining delusion for convenience sake... And, as I said earlier, I think that creates more problems in the long run.... Lying to yourself (whether or not it's about the meat industry, your sexuality, or how exhausting it is to live by your morals) will always interfere with your potential happiness. IMO, It is more exhausting to eat meat than it is to not do so. The exhaustion is just repressed, so you recognize it as something else. Depression, sluggishness, addiction, rage, self-harm, lack of appetite, lack of sexual appetite, etc.



> My point is that my true north includes the fact that I require B-12, and that practically, this is only found in animal sources.



Then your point is downright untrue. B12 is quite easily obtainable without contributing to the suffering of animals. Supplements (that aren't made from animals), sauerkraut & the meat of non sentient lifeforms (like molluscs) are all practical sources of B12... It is only found - _naturally_ - in animals and fermented vegetables, but it can be produced - _practically_ - for little cost, in a highly bio-available supplemental form.



> Watch your wording.



See: above.


----------



## Ninae

willow11 said:


> Veganism/vegetarianism is rarely about trying to save lives or create dramatic, revolutionary change; its about trying to make the individual feel better about their life. As a vegan, the impact I have is utterly minimal, in terms of lives saved/carbon footprint/etc.



If only you do, yes, but there are millions of you and together we make a great impact.


----------



## What 23

Sauerkraut etc does not contain B-12. 
Last time I had molluscs I had a reaction and just about died. That's exaggerating a bit (a lot, it was a sore throat, headache, and chills). But as I have similar reactions to other seafood, I'm assuming I may be hypersensitive. If I am, eating these would make me suffer. Over time, repeated exposure might increase sensitivity, increasing the chance that I will have a life threatening reaction.

And supplements require raw materials to make. They are not simply made. Controlled environments, equipment... Electricity. 

I'm not denying the ground, that is very possibly where I may fall.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Veganism/vegetarianism is rarely about trying to save lives or create dramatic, revolutionary change; its about trying to make the individual feel better about their life.



You can't split actions into selfish / selfless categories.
Everything has a selfish element to it.
All morality functions as you described.

People don't rob their neighbors, in part, because they don't want to feel guilt or - potentially - be arrested.
But there is also the empathetic element, which overlaps with the guilt and the formation of laws.
You can't separate selfish and selfless, because there is no self. They/We are permanently entwined.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Sauerkraut etc does not contain B-12.
> Last time I had molluscs I had a reaction and just about died. That's exaggerating a bit (a lot, it was a sore throat, headache, and chills). But as I have similar reactions to other seafood, I'm assuming I may be hypersensitive. If I am, eating these would make me suffer. Over time, repeated exposure might increase sensitivity, increasing the chance that I will have a life threatening reaction.



Take supplements.
Don't go around telling people that there is no practical source of B12, aside from meat, when it's widely known that there is.
There is B12 in sauerkraut, whether or not it is sufficiently bio-available to sustain healthy dietary levels is up for debate ATM.


----------



## What 23

You haven't been reading my posts.
I am not basing my ethics on an idea that humans can -- but I don't know how to -- synthesize vitamins to supplement an inadequate diet, or a highly questionable claim (at best) that fermented cabbage contains B-12 in significant levels. In a post apocalyptic world or whatever I could thrive eating organ meats and wearing fur in winter (though I might head south), and a vegan would still be trying to browse aisles at an abandoned Whole Foods that has already been looted.

I like to know where I am, and that involves knowing where the ground is. The ground is not supplements.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> It is our nature, and not all of us possess the will to sacrifice practicality, and the strength to overcome our humanity.



But it's no sacrifice...it's all in your mind. I just stopped and after 3 weeks I never looked back. The food people eat is shitty compared to homemade vegetarian food anyway. It's ignorance and laziness more than anything else. People are too lazy to learn how to cook and take the time to prepare their own meals. They're too lazy to study nutrition and make sure they get all they need. And what do most men eat? Cheap take-aways and junk food most of the time. Most people are severly malnourished on the kind of typical diet they cling to.


----------



## socko

So, nobody will come to an agreement partly because nobody can agree on basic definitions of what is suffering.



Ninae said:


> .... It's ignorance and laziness more than anything else. People are too lazy to learn how to cook and take the time to prepare their own meals. They're too lazy to....


There is more to it than that. I know enough about nutrition to eat well, but I absolutely cannot cook. I've tried. I've read cookbooks. I have training in the science of chemistry and do fine in the lab. But whenever I try to cook on my own, something goes horribly wrong. The other day infact, I caused a fire in my flat while reheating some bread in the microwave. I burn holes in my pots when I boil water. My rice boils over and burns.
My gf is a vegetarian. My gf NEVER let me in HER kitchen.  We lived together for 3 years and she cooked all of my meals. We no longer live together, but still for the most part, I'm vegetarian.
Anyway, trying to cook on my own is how the fire with the bread happened. Lucky for me, there are 3 bakeries across the street and I can buy fresh bread the day I want it and no longer have to reheat anythign. There are several vegan and vegetarian restaurants within 100 meters of my flat, so I'm good there as well.  There are some fish markets and sushi shops so I can cheat on my vegetarian diet whever I feel like I don't get enough B12 or protein. There are a dozen fruit stands on my block as well.  It's expensive, but I eat well.


----------



## What 23

I will say that when I ate chicken livers trying to supplement B-12 (because I was having chest pain from the supplement I tried), when I was eating the diet of hemp seeds for two years, that I felt knocked down... That with hemp seeds alone I felt like a higher vibration- I was vibrating better-- on that. Spiritually "high". And eating meat, it was like all of that spirit just left or got covered. Heavy. I don't know. Significantly lowered my vibration, and did for awhile. Days.
But this could be related to something else... Indirectly but directly related.

Supposesly hemp seeds are of the highest "vibration" foods.

My eating meat again, as a staple, was because my throat was closing on me eating plants. I got tired of it. I gave up. But now instead of being 120 lbs and worrying my family, I'm 170 and everyone tells me how good I look. + and -. 

Ideally (I think, sometimes) I would stop eating... I've considered it. My finding a food source- stable sources, is like battle. Even supplements for me can be failed attempts, with my body reacting. I have considered my constant struggle as fighting a losing battle. That admitting, that submitting, and rejecting- choosing to go, gracefully, consciously, is the best way. So it is either fast, for me, or what I am doing.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> But it's no sacrifice...it's all in your mind. I just stopped and after 3 weeks I never looked back.



Same thing goes for your consumption of dairy / eggs.


----------



## What 23

Jesus, the lion and the lamb. 
Jesus, who we eat, whose blood we drink. Who is the host. Who is the sacrifice.

Being a sacrifice in many cultures has been an honor. 
And the Gods eat us. Jesus may be a vampire. Well, that's just an idea. Angels have been related with vampires... Lilith, Adam's first wife, related with vampire.

I would rather have use.
When I really think about it, I want to be eaten. It would be a great honor, to be eaten, by God. By angels. To be consumed and to be.

“Jesus said, ‘Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.’” (7)?

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Go sacrifice yourself then; otherwise: what a load of shit.



> Jesus said, ‘Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.



Jesus spoke in parables.


----------



## What 23

You don't have any idea.


----------



## velmwend

In the developed world there's no justification for taking another life to feed your appetite for 10 minutes. Denying another being the right to live and enjoy it's own senses and experiences on this earth simply because you want to temporarily crave your hunger, is ethically indefensible. 

On the B12 issue. How do you think animals obtain their B12? From the earth. 

Take you daily full spectrum vegan supplement, leave the dirt on your mushrooms,  live your life with empathy, enjoy your existence and let others enjoy theirs too. No need for violence and aggression against other animals just to fill your belly. Time to expand your mind.


----------



## Ninae

What Jesus meant by that is man shouldn't be consumed by his animal nature, while if an animal learns to become more like man it's an achievment for an animal. If a lion becomes domesticated and learns to live with other creatures with love it will know a new life.

He also said "One day the lion shall lie down with the lamb". Marking the beginning of a new life for the animals on earth.

Jesus also lived as a vegetarian and so were his first followers for the first centuries before Christianity was adopted as a state religion, where it of course wasn't desirable. The first Christians were seens as crazy lunatics, however, they practiced a more pure form of Christianity.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Jesus wasn't a vegetarian in the Bible.


----------



## Ninae

"The Bible" isn't very representative of his original teachings. Constantine decided what would go in. And of course vegeterianism couldn't be part of a mass-religion who lived off meat.

The Gnostics, Cathars were vegeterians. Also the Essene community he grow up among. They were a puritan group who kept themselves apart from society and also had a great influence on how he came to be.


----------



## Abject

vitamin supplements =/= dietary vitamins


----------



## ForEverAfter

^There are some issues with getting certain vitamins from supplements (like Vitamin A) but B12 isn't one of them, and all other vitamins are present in a vegan diet... so I'm not sure how significant that is, in the context of this discussion.

I take it you don't have a source to back up your statement of Jesus being vegan/vegetarian, Ninae?


----------



## Ninae

It's widely documented the first Christians lived as vegetarians. But most likely they would have some animals in their community which would provide them with some milk. It's not a problem when it's done on a small scale like that.


----------



## Ninae

https://medium.com/sant-mat-meditat...at-the-beginning-of-christianity-9279741be7c4


----------



## ForEverAfter

Interesting,
Thanks.


----------



## Ninae

If you're partial to Christianity I would advice you to read about The Essenes, The Ebionties, John the Baptist's gospels, the first Gnostic Christians, and the Cathars. At least that's what Christianity means to me and the only form of Christianity that really interests me. It's just so underground, must don't know any more than the simplistic version of Christianity that we're conventionaly taught (and it's like they prefer it that way as they don't want to let go of their anti-Christian sentiments).


----------



## ForEverAfter

I will look further into it, now.
You've sparked my interest.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I'm pretty sure they get it from their own digestive tract.



B12 can be obtained by consuming mineral rich soil.
Theoretically, you can get it from not washing your vegetables.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that numerous animal species do so.
While it is present in the digestive tracts of some animals, it is also consumed by herbivorous animals... So, it's quite possible that a considerable amount of B12 present in the digestive tracts of animals originates - quite literally - from the Earth, especially since carnivorous animals tend to consume herbivorous animals.

The B12 that humans "naturally" produce in their digestive tract is insufficient, nutritionally.
Everything that we need comes from the Earth, at some point.


----------



## What 23

velmwend said:


> I the developed world there's no justification for taking another life to feed your appetite for 10 minutes. Denying another being the right to live and enjoy it's own senses and experiences on this earth simply because you want to temporarily crave your hunger, is ethically indefensible.
> 
> On the B12 issue. How do you think animals obtain their B12? From the earth.
> 
> Take you daily full spectrum vegan supplement, leave the dirt on your mushrooms,  live your life with empathy, enjoy your existence and let others enjoy theirs too. No need for violence and aggression against other animals just to fill your belly. Time to expand your mind.



http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/animal

From the earth, like everything. Even our most vegan relatives, the gorilla, eat small insects, and grubs. 

B12 is produced by bacteria that is in soil, but in certain animals these bacteria may get chances to increase in number, due to anatomy. Humans have this bacteria in their lower digestive tract... Where they can't reabsorb nutrients like B12, where herbivores have it in areas where they can absorb it. 

Expand my mind? I was a vegetarian for 4 or so years. Vegan for 2 ish. I have been there.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Yes, you ought to.
> And saying it's exhausting is a poor excuse.
> It's not remotely difficult to seek the truth, if you want to.
> It sounds like you're intentionally maintaining delusion for convenience sake... And, as I said earlier, I think that creates more problems in the long run.... Lying to yourself (whether or not it's about the meat industry, your sexuality, or how exhausting it is to live by your morals) will always interfere with your potential happiness. IMO, It is more exhausting to eat meat than it is to not do so. The exhaustion is just repressed, so you recognize it as something else. Depression, sluggishness, addiction, rage, self-harm, lack of appetite, lack of sexual appetite.


I don't suffer from those side effects you mentioned.  By all means, post some recent studies done.  I am not one to just take another's opinion as is.  I need to see actual numbers from a credible source.  Like I said, I have seen how cows live in my area, and it don't seem too bad.  Is what we do to them really worse than what a wolf would do?  Like I said, its not that I don't want to change, I just have faith that we are the world and there is purpose to all this insanity.  We have to go through all these primitive stages of development so our knowledge and technology can grow into something capable of unimaginable greatness.   The world will progress with or without your efforts so I focus on my personal progress and those I personally come into contact with. 

If I had learned the quote button, they would have quoted murphythecat, because most of what I was typing was directed at his posts.  From the beggining I stated I only have a problem with people who think we should all quit eating meat and killing other species of life.  That there is no excuse to take a life to eat it.   I would love to live in a utopia like that, but my point is that this world isn't that simple.  It is not so cut and dry.   We would all like to think we know what is best for everyone, but we don't.  Nobody can predict the future.  Nature is unpredictable.


----------



## -=SS=-

ForEverAfter said:


> Nobody on the meat side has yet provided a reasonable explanation as to why it is okay to contribute to the enslavement and suffering of animals, excluding specific situations in which meat is required in order to sustain local populations... We don't need it, so - considering the realities of where it comes from - we shouldn't consume it.



We don't _need_ any of the technological gadgets that we utilize on a daily basis like mobiles, laptops, and so forth.. they don't actually contribute physically to our survival, least not directly in the same way food does. And yet.. all the precious metals, tin, and other bits and bobs within our gadgets come to us largely via the exploitation, enslavement and suffering, of other human beings in Africa and the East. All the corporations know this full well but do nothing about it, because profit. Especially Apple. Fuck Apple and Steve Jobs, stupid cunt thank god you and your retarded face are dead.

By your logic we shouldn't buy any of these goods.


----------



## ForEverAfter

There are certainly problems with many industries, but I don't think it's the same.
You can chose eco-friendly beauty products and eco-friendly technological devices.
There are no eco-friendly farmed meats, in my opinion.

What I'm objecting to is like a prolonged holocaust. The conditions and the realities are so horrific, and so widespread, that it is awful to contribute to it in order to satisfy your taste-buds and/or enable a lazy lifestyle... Humans are treated better than animals, generally.

There are very lowly paid workers in many parts of the world, but I generally educate myself about companies that I deal with and avoid - as much as I can - contributing to those problems by consuming those products. This requires a bit of work, admittedly, but not that much.

I don't see how you can negate one wrong, with another one.
Should we contribute to companies that cause animals to suffer? No.
Should we contribute to companies that cause humans to suffer? No.
Is the suffering equal, regardless of species? No.

According to the logic that you're proposing (not me): if we think murder is wrong, we must also think theft is wrong... and there must be a zero tolerance policy towards both, regardless of the severity of the act.


----------



## LuGoJ

ForEverAfter said:


> There are certainly problems with many industries, but I don't think it's the same.
> You can chose eco-friendly beauty products and eco-friendly technological devices.
> There are no eco-friendly farmed meats, in my opinion.
> 
> What I'm objecting to is like a prolonged holocaust. The conditions and the realities are so horrific, and so widespread, that it is awful to contribute to it in order to satisfy your taste-buds and/or enable a lazy lifestyle... Humans are treated better than animals, generally.
> 
> There are very lowly paid workers in many parts of the world, but I generally educate myself about companies that I deal with and avoid - as much as I can - contributing to those problems by consuming those products. This requires a bit of work, admittedly, but not that much.
> 
> I don't see how you can negate one wrong, with another one.
> Should we contribute to companies that cause animals to suffer? No.
> Should we contribute to companies that cause humans to suffer? No.
> Is the suffering equal, regardless of species? No.
> 
> According to the logic that you're proposing (not me): if we think murder is wrong, we must also think theft is wrong... and there must be a zero tolerance policy towards both, regardless of the severity of the act.



It seems for you, the issue is more about animals treatment during their life, rather than the actual act of killing and eating it. Just curious, how do you feel about a farmer raising his own free roaming chickens on many acres, and then a quick decapitation? Do you put that at the same level as factory farming etc? Just curious as I have family in europe that are farmers and see how they treat their animals.


----------



## ForEverAfter

My aim is to move to the country in about 3-5 years on a property designed to be self-sustaining.
My girlfriend wants to have chickens, but I'm not totally comfortable with it.
I've given it a lot of thought and I'm still struggling to settle on the pro side.
I have much less problem with animals being treated relatively well, sure.
But I don't approve of the harvesting of eggs.

If you raised chickens and treated them like pets and then ate them, that would be okay... but tricking them into laying and sitting on top of unfertilized eggs, so you can widen your menu is still a bit off (IMO). It doesn't feel right, no matter how I think about it.

In the end, it will be my girlfriend's property also. So, she can do what she wants.
Although I don't want to be around chickens that are being used to produce eggs, I can tolerate that much "suffering".
If she wanted to raise a large number of cattle in a small space (as many as possible, per acre) and cost-efficiently slaughter them and sell the meat to people, who are removed from the reality of the situation, then I'd have a problem with that... Raising sheep and cows, with as much love and respect as you'd give your cat / dog, on the other hand, then personally slaughtering them and eating them: I don't see a problem with that, at all... Like I said, I don't think killing for meat is wrong. (Killing for justice is wrong, though.) Having said that, I don't think me or my girlfriend would actually be capable of killing an animal we know personally. It would be a terribly unsatisfying meal, knowing that it cost the life of a creature that we loved... How can you put a price on a beautiful animal, unless you're seriously detached from it's beauty?


----------



## socko

ForEverAfter said:


> ....
> My girlfriend wants to have chickens, but I'm not totally comfortable with it.
> ...
> But I don't approve of the harvesting of eggs.
> 
> If you raised chickens and treated them like pets and then ate them, that would be okay... but* tricking them into laying and sitting on top of unfertilized egg*s, .... It doesn't feel right, no matter how I think about it.


The part I bolded, do you really believe that? Do you believe that chickens are tricked into laying eggs? And that they are somehow fooled into sitting atop unfertilized eggs?

I have no idea on your background, but it sounds like you have never seen a live chicken in your life. 

For free-range chickens, you treat them like pets. It is no different from having a pet cat or dog. Treat her well and she will be happy. Treat her mean, and she will suffer and probably run away. You and your girl friend will have a few on the farm in a few years and give them names.  They might follow you around the yard and eat out of your hand. For them, laying eggs is like taking a dump. There is no stress or trauma, they do it naturally, and they look a little relieved after they're finished.

 When she's mature at around the age of 6 months, a female chicken (hen) lays an egg about once a day. She does this naturally and on her own. If she's free range ( runs around loose in the yard ), when she feels the urge, she will find a quiet place under a bush or in the grass or in her nest and sit for a little while, drop an egg. It usually only takes 15 minutes or so. Then get up and go about the rest of her day normally. At night, she will fly up in a tree to sleep. If it's cold, you will need a shelter for her. That's all there is to it. There is no suffering or trickery involved. If the egg is fertilized, she might make a nest and incubate the eggs for 3 weeks until they hatch.

I have kept my own chickens for eggs when I could. When I live in the city and can't do that, the Egg Man delivers free-range eggs to my door every week. He wears a white delivery man's uniform complete with a white hat and bow tie. When I first subscribed to the delivery service, I visited the Egg Man's farm on the edge of the city to see for myself how the chickens were treated, and they really were treated like pets. 

For high-throughput factory egg laying chickens, it's a different story. That's what you get from the store. I don't buy eggs from the store.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I'm not an expert on chickens, obviously, but I have seen them kept for eggs and it rubs me the wrong way.
There is something odd about harvesting part of the reproductive cycle of another animal.
You can grow accustomed to the idea, as many are, and not see it as weird. But, it is IMO.
Chickens do sit on unfertilized eggs, as if waiting for them to hatch, by the way. Look it up.
Also: in the wild, chickens lay eggs seasonally.

By trick, I meant they don't naturally produce the number of unfertilized eggs that they do on farms and they do it all year round.

Regarding the relief you say that chickens experience when laying eggs, people say the same thing about milk: that cows like to be milked... as if there is some sort of mutually beneficial situation going on between humans and animals...

Whether or not passing rather large eggs from their relatively small bodies provides them a sense of relief (much like someone who is constipated passing a rather large nugget of compressed fecal matter) isn't dependent on our presence anyway... and they wouldn't require so much relief, if we didn't force them to ovulate all year round like we force cows on dairy farms to lactate permanently.



			
				freefromharm.org said:
			
		

> ...the process of making and passing an egg requires so much energy and labor that in nature, wild hens lay only 10 to 15 eggs per year. The Red Jungle Fowl — the wild relatives from whom domestic layer hens are descended — lay one to two clutches of eggs annually, with 4 to 6 eggs per clutch on average. Their bodies could never sustain the physical depletion of laying the hundreds of eggs that domestic chickens have been forced to produce through genetic manipulation. It is a common misconception that chickens are always just naturally “giving” eggs, because modern egg hens have been intensively bred to lay between 250 to 300 eggs a year. But in the wild, chickens, like all birds, lay only during breeding season — primarily in the spring — and only enough eggs to assure the survival of their genes.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> But it's no sacrifice...it's all in your mind. I just stopped and after 3 weeks I never looked back. The food people eat is shitty compared to homemade vegetarian food anyway. It's ignorance and laziness more than anything else. People are too lazy to learn how to cook and take the time to prepare their own meals. They're too lazy to study nutrition and make sure they get all they need. And what do most men eat? Cheap take-aways and junk food most of the time. Most people are severly malnourished on the kind of typical diet they cling to.



yes, I am ignorant to how to make a vegetarian diet appeal to me.  I am too lazy to throw all that away without adequate motivation.  If the world wants me to quit eating meat, I would meet a cute vegan chick that showed me that lifestyle so I could be in a better position to feel its feasible for me.  To taste her dishes and learn recipes without having to make something for myself without a clue if I can even eat it or not.  I love meat, and it would be a huge sacrifice for me to give that up.  I wouldn't choose to make such sacrifices on my own accord because I am lazy partially due to my ignorance.  However, I am a reasonable and compassionate person, who tries to find a healthy compromise.  I try very hard not to be a push over, but who am I kinding, anyone in my personal life can easily talk me into a good cause.  I just don't have many people in my life ever trying to talk me into one.  Like I said, when we can  grow our food from a molecular level we could simply convert into a powder that can be stored for years and used on a 3D printer to print out any food you want, then I will do my part and buy a food synthesizer.


----------



## socko

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm not an expert on chickens, ....
> Chickens do sit on unfertilized eggs, as if waiting for them to hatch, by the way. Look it up.


What do you mean 'Look it up?' I used to raise chickens, and that is rare (for mine anyway. I only had hens and not a rooster) and can be prevented. It never seems to bother the hen when it happens. If it bothers you when that happens, you can take away the eggs or move the nest. The whole point of being free range is that the hen is free to do whatever she wants and can leave the eggs if she needs to.


ForEverAfter said:


> Also: in the wild, chickens lay eggs seasonally.
> .


For wild birds, maybe, but chickens are a domesticated species. Free range chickens lay an egg almost every day. If it's an escaped flock of domesticated chickens, I would imagine it would depend on the climate and whether they are stressed.



ForEverAfter said:


> Regarding the relief you say that chickens experience when laying eggs, people say the same thing about milk: that cows like to be milked... as if there is some sort of mutually beneficial situation going on between humans and animals... Whether or not passing rather large eggs from their relatively small bodies provides them a sense of relief (much like someone who is constipated passing a rather large nugget of compressed fecal matter) isn't dependent on our presence anyway.


On the size of the egg relative to the chicken's opening, you can get breeds of chickens that naturally lay smaller eggs compaired to body size. Factory chickens are bred to lay unnaturally large eggs in which case, I imagine the hen is very uncomfortable laying the egg. 

I think milking a cow is a different story - unlike chickens with eggs, in the case of milking, they do not naturally give milk and it is only because of the interference of the farmer that they give milk their entire lives. The milk builds up and if not milked on time, the cow is in  pain.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm not an expert on chickens, obviously, but I have seen them kept for eggs and it rubs me the wrong way.
> There is something odd about harvesting part of the reproductive cycle of another animal.
> You can grow accustomed to the idea, as many are, and not see it as weird. But, it is IMO.
> Chickens do sit on unfertilized eggs, as if waiting for them to hatch, by the way. Look it up.
> Also: in the wild, chickens lay eggs seasonally.
> 
> By trick, I meant they don't naturally produce the number of unfertilized eggs that they do on farms and they do it all year round.
> 
> Regarding the relief you say that chickens experience when laying eggs, people say the same thing about milk: that cows like to be milked... as if there is some sort of mutually beneficial situation going on between humans and animals... Whether or not passing rather large eggs from their relatively small bodies provides them a sense of relief (much like someone who is constipated passing a rather large nugget of compressed fecal matter) isn't dependent on our presence anyway... and they wouldn't require so much relief, if we didn't force them to ovulate all year round like we force cows on dairy farms to lactate permanently.



It is mutually beneficial.  We supply them a life that they would otherwise be without, we protect them from danger and supply them with food and shelter, and in exchange when they reach a certain stage in their development, we take the life we gave them back and reutilize the resources we gave them.  We eat them and supply our body and all the other little organisms that live with in us the sustenance we gave them. Whats left geta recycled back into the system.  Like I said, it depends on the individual practices of those who raise the animals.  The farmers that I know, treat their animals fairly.  Some even love them.  Its all a matter of perspective.  I am not much for seeing things in black or white.


----------



## ForEverAfter

In the end, neither of us really know how the animals feel.
You say they're treated fairly on the farms that you're familiar with.
But, do they believe they are being treated fairly?

The idea of giving life and therefore having control over it is troubling.
If we spawn a human life, by cloning random anonymous genetic material, or the old fashioned way, do we own it?
Should we treat this life that we created any differently from a life that we didn't create?
Should there be double standards like that?
Until we know that it is consensual... 
Until they, the chickens, have some say in the matter...
Then describing the situation as mutually beneficial isn't fair, I don't think.
Do chickens want to be egg machines? Who are you to say?

How is laying eggs daily for your entire life different from working in a sweat shop in a poverty stricken part of the world? People who work for slave wages in horrible conditions, are they involved in a mutually beneficial situation also? After all, they get money which provides them with shelter / food / and safety... What's the difference? ... It's the same logic.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> I will say that when I ate chicken livers trying to supplement B-12 (because I was having chest pain from the supplement I tried), when I was eating the diet of hemp seeds for two years, that I felt knocked down... That with hemp seeds alone I felt like a higher vibration- I was vibrating better-- on that. Spiritually "high". And eating meat, it was like all of that spirit just left or got covered. Heavy. I don't know. Significantly lowered my vibration, and did for awhile. Days.
> But this could be related to something else... Indirectly but directly related.
> 
> Supposesly hemp seeds are of the highest "vibration" foods.
> 
> My eating meat again, as a staple, was because my throat was closing on me eating plants. I got tired of it. I gave up. But now instead of being 120 lbs and worrying my family, I'm 170 and everyone tells me how good I look. + and -.
> 
> Ideally (I think, sometimes) I would stop eating... I've considered it. My finding a food source- stable sources, is like battle. Even supplements for me can be failed attempts, with my body reacting. I have considered my constant struggle as fighting a losing battle. That admitting, that submitting, and rejecting- choosing to go, gracefully, consciously, is the best way. So it is either fast, for me, or what I am doing.



have you tried soylent?

http://www.soylent.me/


----------



## murphythecat

what23, what did you eat?

I eat eggs, all sort of beans, seeds, nuts, fruits, vegetable, lentils, tofu and i havent lost any weight.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> For wild birds, maybe, but chickens are a domesticated species. Free range chickens lay an egg almost every day. If it's an escaped flock of domesticated chickens, I would imagine it would depend on the climate and whether they are stressed.



How many unfertilized eggs do you think they lay in the wild? Fertilization is controlled on farms. From what I've read, it seems like a single wild rooster is capable of fertilizing a week's worth of eggs in a single encounter and is capable of fertilizing the eggs of dozens of hens, indefinitely... We've bred and conditioned these birds to lay eggs constantly, so you could argue that laying fertilized eggs constantly isn't much of an improvement in terms of the stress it puts on their bodies... And you're right. We can't really reverse that. But, at least, they'd be creating life rather than being tricked into thinking that they're producing life, so we can have something to eat with our fried pig meat...


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> In the end, neither of us really know how the animals feel.
> You say they're treated fairly on the farms that you're familiar with.
> But, do they believe they are being treated fairly?
> 
> The idea of giving life and therefore having control over it is troubling.
> If we spawn a human life, by cloning random anonymous genetic material, or the old fashioned way, do we own it?
> Should we treat this life that we created any differently from a life that we didn't create?
> Should there be double standards like that?
> Until we know that it is consensual...
> Until they, the chickens, have some say in the matter...
> Then describing the situation as mutually beneficial isn't fair, I don't think.
> Do chickens want to be egg machines? Who are you to say?
> 
> How is laying eggs daily for your entire life different from working in a sweat shop in a poverty stricken part of the world? People who work for slave wages in horrible conditions, are they involved in a mutually beneficial situation also? After all, they get money which provides them with shelter / food / and safety... What's the difference? ... It's the same logic.



I have worked for minumum wage in a factory.  I was grateful to have an opportunity to earn something in a time when I had nothing.  I am all for revolution, but change is a gradual thing on a human scale.  All this devastation to come will be worth it in the long run if these stages in our human development lead to capabalities to save life from extinction and spread it across the galaxy.  Or develop a kind of intelligence that doesn't occur naturally without the help of an organic intelligent designer.  We could someday synthesize entire universes and possibly be able to observe them.  We might find we are already living in a simulated universe.  This is the world we were born into, and I am grateful to be here.  I look at the big picture and am awed by its brilliant beauty.  If we are meant to outgrow our primitive ways, then we will in due time.


----------



## socko

ForEverAfter said:


> In the end, neither of us really know how the animals feel.
> You say they're treated fairly on the farms that you're familiar with.
> But, do they believe they are being treated fairly?
> ....
> How is laying eggs daily for your entire life different from working in a sweat shop in a poverty stricken part of the world? People who work for slave wages in horrible conditions, are they involved in a mutually beneficial situation also? After all, they get money which provides them with shelter / food / and safety... What's the difference? ... It's the same logic.


Fairness is a relative term. I believe a free range egg hen that has responsible people to care for her has a much more fair life than somebody born into 3rd world poverty. She can eat as much as she wants when she wants. She is free to go in the yard or in her shelter or roost in a tree.
Anyway, they are very different situations. A slave in a sweatshop is confined and works the entire day and every minute of their life is controlled. An egg laying hen that you raise in your yard spends around 15 minutes of the day working for you, and the rest of the day, she's free and on her own. In a way, that's a better life than most human 9-5 workers.



ForEverAfter said:


> How many unfertilized eggs do you think they lay in the wild? Fertilization is controlled on farms. From what I've read, it seems like a single wild rooster is capable of fertilizing a week's worth of eggs in a single encounter and is capable of fertilizing the eggs of dozens of hens, indefinitely... We've bred and conditioned these birds to lay eggs constantly, so you could argue that laying fertilized eggs constantly isn't much of an improvement in terms of the stress it puts on their bodies... And you're right. We can't really reverse that. But, at least, they'd be creating life rather than being tricked into thinking that they're producing life, so we can have something to eat with our fried pig meat....


I disagree with your use of the phrase 'tricked into thinking that they're producing life.' I don't think they lay an egg expecting to produce a life any more than a drunk school girl expects to be a mother when she has unprotected sex on Prom Night.

As for the number of eggs layed, there are breeds of chickens that lay eggs less frequently. So if you had a hen that laid an egg 3 times a week and it took her 15 minutes each time, and the eggs are relatively small compared to her body parts, she'd have a very relaxed and stress-free life. 

If you have never done it, you might actually enjoy visiting somebody who has a few pet chickens for eggs. Even if it bother you, at least you'll be able to see first hand what your girlfriend is talking about. 

With free range chickens, you can create a good environment for them, and you don't have to get a breed of chicken that cranks out 3 jumbo eggs a day.

I want to point out that a hen doesn't need a rooster to lay an egg. The hen will lay eggs on her own even if she's never been any where near a rooster.  It's the opposite for milking cows.  Generally, they need to have had a calf first, and then they will produce milk their entire lives as long as the farmer keeps milking them.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> It's widely documented the first Christians lived as vegetarians. But most likely they would have some animals in their community which would provide them with some milk. It's not a problem when it's done on a small scale like that.



Technically, its still an assumption to say he lived at all in a literal or historical sense.  All we can do is take people's word for it, and those people lived so long ago it all seems irrelevant to me.  I'd like to think if he did live a historical life, he was no different than Buddha or krishna, and represents our potential become in tune with the worldly spirit of empathy and compassion.  We tend to glorify our spiritual leaders as gods whether they intended for us to or not.

Ultimately, for me, wisdom stands on its own whether it is spoken from the mouth of a man or god.


----------



## -=SS=-

My mother kept 2 chickens in the garden for awhile and they had such a cush life. She'd let them out every day so they could run around the garden, eating a wide variety of bugs and such, having dust baths by the base of a plum tree etc. They looked amazingly healthy, extremely spritely. I used to feed them blackberries from the hedge, and I'd take them round the garden to feed them spiders.. I'd use a bamboo cane to fish them out of the webs and feed the chickens. Absolutely loved spiders.

The quality of the eggs they produced was a reflection of their health. The colour and the taste. Om nom.


----------



## Ninae

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-birds-fast-food-chain-uses-year-kept-in.html


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> It is mutually beneficial.  We supply them a life that they would otherwise be without, we protect them from danger and supply them with food and shelter, and in exchange when they reach a certain stage in their development, we take the life we gave them back and reutilize the resources we gave them.



But this implies that animals owe us something, because we 'gave' them life. The opposite is more correct, that if you bring animals to life then you have the burden of responsibility for this state, unwanted/unasked for as it always is. It is YOU that bought this creature to life, it is therefore YOU that is responsible with providing it with a satisfactory existence. The animal owe's you nothing whatsoever. This is not a fair exchange. It is almost evil to say- look at this unwanted gift I give you, now suffer for the duration of it because you should (but can't really) appreciate this above the alternative void. That is expecting way too much from most animals and is illogical and unfair. I appreciate your sentiment, but I think this view is slightly reversed or something. 

Truly not attacking _you_ here, this is something that I hear quite commonly, that animals are in debt to us because they otherwise would not have lived. I just believe the opposite is true. I think it is the least we can do, to provide quality of life to lifeforms that we have forced to live. 



> The farmers that I know, treat their animals fairly.  Some even love them.  Its all a matter of perspective.  I am not much for seeing things in black or white.



I'm sure some farmers do, but in reality, ALL should. They owe everything to their animals, their entire lives- why not make this obligatory, that if you are going to take a creatures life, that you show it some natural justice and grant it some peace and the space to breed/live out their biological imperative, at least for a while? Or at least get rid of fucking devices like sow-stalls and see them for the utterly *inhuman* practises they are! Their is very little to lose by doing so. I dunno if that sounds naive, because if people want to eat meat everyday, its unlikely that organic and free range farming will ever supply that quantity and factory farming will continue to be the norm. 

In my opinion, this is close to evil. What has happened to this great quality of human empathy when the majority of people seem to be willing to ignore this:






I'd point out the cute timidity of the runt standing awkwardly at the back, but the system that animal is part of is unwilling to allow such an animal its natural inclination, and its weakness is unprofitable and has already doomed it. What is the fucking point of that sort of existence? I would rather die then live in pain or confined- that is not life, that is a mockery of it.


----------



## LuGoJ

Ninae said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-birds-fast-food-chain-uses-year-kept-in.html



I must be a sick fuck because when I got to the picture of the fried chicken, I got really really hungry. I'm not a big fan of KFC though.

Popeyes or Bojangles all the way!


----------



## thujone

i was expecting something horrid but those are pretty decent conditions for chickens


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> But this implies that animals owe us something, because we 'gave' them life. The opposite is more correct, that if you bring animals to life then you have the burden of responsibility for this state, unwanted/unasked for as it always is. It is YOU that bought this creature to life, it is therefore YOU that is responsible with providing it with a satisfactory existence. The animal owe's you nothing whatsoever. This is not a fair exchange. It is almost evil to say- look at this unwanted gift I give you, now suffer for the duration of it because you should (but can't really) appreciate this above the alternative void. That is expecting way too much from most animals and is illogical and unfair. I appreciate your sentiment, but I think this view is slightly reversed or something.
> 
> Truly not attacking _you_ here, this is something that I hear quite commonly, that animals are in debt to us because they otherwise would not have lived. I just believe the opposite is true. I think it is the least we can do, to provide quality of life to lifeforms that we have forced to live.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure some farmers do, but in reality, ALL should. They owe everything to their animals, their entire lives- why not make this obligatory, that if you are going to take a creatures life, that you show it some natural justice and grant it some peace and the space to breed/live out their biological imperative, at least for a while? Or at least get rid of fucking devices like sow-stalls and see them for the utterly *inhuman* practises they are! Their is very little to lose by doing so. I dunno if that sounds naive, because if people want to eat meat everyday, its unlikely that organic and free range farming will ever supply that quantity and factory farming will continue to be the norm.
> 
> In my opinion, this is close to evil. What has happened to this great quality of human empathy when the majority of people seem to be willing to ignore this:
> 
> I'd point out the cute timidity of the runt standing awkwardly at the back, but the system that animal is part of is unwilling to allow such an animal its natural inclination, and its weakness is unprofitable and has already doomed it. What is the fucking point of that sort of existence? I would rather die then live in pain or confined- that is not life, that is a mockery of it.




please stop arguing with me out of context.  Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned.  How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not.  If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.



If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.


----------



## Ninae

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.



on both sides it seems.  Live and let live, I like to say!  Until I get hungry...


----------



## murphythecat

i agree





Ninae said:


> This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.


----------



## What 23

For me it is at least sometimes a matter of I lived through years of being terrified of food/reactions and feeling sick and at times nearly fainting, and coming here to a bunch of fucking psych users (? Sometimes I think... Not that there is anything wrong with it but...) who lost their boundaries with the world and never fully reconstituted, who are now trying to tell me I'm evil or "wrong" for eating food that I am not terrified of... That doesn't cause me to feel pain. 

My problem in part is being of limited choice already, and having some fucking Nazi (well, a word for a dictator) tell me I have less of a choice. Fuck that and fuck them. It wouldn't even be wrong for me to eat them.

It makes me feel homicidal. Even genocidal. Not that it is a new feeling, but fuck people putting their "morals" on me. If a chicken has to suffer getting slaughtered so that I don't have to suffer, it is a no brainer for me. The chicken dies, and my body doesn't have to struggle to digest proteins and things it has trouble with. The food is partially broken down, and in a form that I was "designed" to digest.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> please stop arguing with me out of context.  Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned.  How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not.  If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.



Okay, I apologise if I am taking you out of context, but I just felt like I was responding to the points you raised more broadly. You've mentioned a few times the cattle that you see grazing peacefully, which makes me think you are somewhat unaware of the reality of the "inhumane practises" you wish to see abandoned. 

I'm really just pointing out what I think are flaws in your reasoning, you just think I'm beating you over the head with it.



> If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.



You've lost me here I must admit. Are you saying what I think you are, that living a life of sufferring is better then nothing? That sounds like trying to excuse inhuman practises (as you yourself put it) by implying that it is still a gift of sorts. In my opinion, it is not...



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.



Can you even remotely quantify that? Is having a discussion on the internet really that extreme? I think we all need to understand that dissent and disagreement is not the same thing as lack of respect. Some of my closest friends are people I have regular, heated arguments with.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Okay, I apologise if I am taking you out of context, but I just felt like I was responding to the points you raised more broadly. You've mentioned a few times the cattle that you see grazing peacefully, which makes me think you are somewhat unaware of the reality of the "inhumane practises" you wish to see abandoned.
> 
> I'm really just pointing out what I think are flaws in your reasoning, you just think I'm beating you over the head with it.
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost me here I must admit. Are you saying what I think you are, that living a life of sufferring is better then nothing? That sounds like trying to excuse inhuman practises (as you yourself put it) by implying that it is still a gift of sorts.




you are implying the opposite.  That not living a life at all is better than a life of confined spaces and a mechanical death.

I told you how to address my points.  Post some studies done.  I would say neither of us or the chicken know if they would rather live in a shack or not at all.  If I were a chicken in a shack I would want to live free and in the wild.  If I were in the dangers of the wild where life is a constant struggle to survive, I world rather be a pet chicken.  You keep acting like eating meat is inherently wrong which has little to do with inhumane business practices.  I have stated from the get go my goal is to present an argument that it can be ethical to eat meat.  The only holes in my logic presented are not directed at my arguments but counter only a strawman interpretation.


----------



## Ninae

All the mindless arguments and justifications, like arguing for the welfare of plants when you don't even care about animals. It's just an excuse and not connected with reality or the life they live in any way. It just comes from a purely subjective standpoint and has little relevance to anyone but yourself.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> All the mindless arguments and justifications, like arguing for the welfare of plants when you don't even care about animals. It's just an excuse and not connected with reality or the life they live in any way. It just comes from a purely subjective standpoint and has little relevance to anyone but yourself.



Food preferences tend to be subjective as is experience itself.
I gave you a solid reason why humans should keep meat on the menu.  I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way things are for now.


----------



## What 23

murphythecat said:


> what23, what did you eat?
> 
> I eat eggs, all sort of beans, seeds, nuts, fruits, vegetable, lentils, tofu and i havent lost any weight.



For two years I thought all I could tolerate acceptably were hemp seeds. I wasn't far from the truth. Some days I ate only about 800 calories worth of them, and a lot wasn't even digested... so it was likely about 300 calories or so that actually made it into my body.

Edit: Numbers... I guess I was off. I would eat about 1300 a day often, not that 800 days didn't exist (and 2600), and I malabsorbed. It was as if matter would pass undigested, and in significant enough amounts, even when I would chew it as best as I could or put it through a food processor. I was probably less than 120 at a point, and I am six feet tall. When I weighed myself and saw 120 I had clothes on.


----------



## LuGoJ

Ninae said:


> This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.



Any passionate argument or debate generally does, i think it has to do with the fact that both sides think the other is kind of crazy. Vegetarians think meat eaters are absolutely nuts for eating meat, and meat eater think vegetarians are nuts for freaking out about it so much.  At least this thread isn't an abortion thread! those can be even worse! If we were to have a thread about abortion, I bet tons of vegetarians would support it and tons of meat eaters wouldn't. When you think about it, that's kind of crazy in itself. Everyone places different values on different life forms at different stages of their existence.

For all we know, we may be next on the menu one of these days. Wouldn't that be a trip? Meat eaters try to start eating vegetarians, and vegetarians start to round up meat eaters to use them as fertilizer.


----------



## Ninae

But as long as abortions are going on what is wrong with killing and eating animals?


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> Food preferences tend to be subjective as is experience itself.
> I gave you a solid reason why humans should keep meat on the menu.  I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way things are for now.


no you didnt say one convincing argument.

food preference is subjective
morality is objective

go ahead, eat meat, but dont try to convince people its morally acceptable, or rather, dont try to convince yourself it is.



turkalurk said:


> on both sides it seems.  Live and let live, I like to say!  Until I get hungry...


exactly, live and let live. dont create animals then kill them.



turkalurk said:


> please stop arguing with me out of context.  Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned.  How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not.  If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.
> 
> 
> 
> If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.


we create life of animals, make them go thrue a life of suffering and then kill them and you find this acceptable because we at least give them a life.



turkalurk said:


> It is mutually beneficial.  We supply them a life that they would otherwise be without, we protect them from danger and supply them with food and shelter, and in exchange when they reach a certain stage in their development, we take the life we gave them back and reutilize the resources we gave them.  We eat them and supply our body and all the other little organisms that live with in us the sustenance we gave them. Whats left geta recycled back into the system.  Like I said, it depends on the individual practices of those who raise the animals.  The farmers that I know, treat their animals fairly.  Some even love them.  Its all a matter of perspective.  I am not much for seeing things in black or white.


how kind of us!


----------



## LuGoJ

Ninae said:


> But as long as abortions are going on what is wrong with killing and eating animals?



No no no, i didn't mean that. I meant a thread about abortion can be worse than this thread in terms of viciousness, and that often the people you would expect to support something based on other beliefs of theirs, often won't. I didn't mean to insinuate that I was speaking about abortion itself! sorry for the confusion


----------



## Ninae

It was a parody.

"What's the point of changing one evil when there are so many other evils in the world? Even if we get rid of one, there will still be all the rest, so we might as well leave it as it is".

It's that kind of reasoning that ensures the world never improves (and that people can't seen further than their own interests).


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> no you didnt say one convincing argument.
> 
> food preference is subjective
> morality is objective
> 
> go ahead, eat meat, but dont try to convince people its morally acceptable, or rather, dont try to convince yourself it is.
> 
> 
> exactly, live and let live. dont create animals then kill them.
> 
> 
> we create life of animals, make them go thrue a life of suffering and then kill them and you find this acceptable because we at least give them a life.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, this is insane.



According to the ethical principles of universialization, veganism as an ethical is problematic, because there is no current model for transitioning world for such a drastic change in the dynamics of ecosystems.   

If this is the most illogical argument, please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check.


If only things were as easy as there seem to be in your mind.  Everyone can just quit eating meat and eat more vegetation, problem solved. Like I said, such a view is naive and short-sighted.


----------



## murphythecat

as shown previously, vegetable fields are much less environmentally damageable.
if everyone would stop eating meat, it would be for the benefit not only for the poor animals, but for the planet and every living organism on the planet

and, honestly im not sure I undrstand what you mean here:
_please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check._



turkalurk said:


> According to the ethical principles of universialization, veganism as an ethical is problematic, because there is no current model for transitioning world for such a drastic change in the dynamics of ecosystems.
> 
> If this is the most illogical argument, please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check.
> 
> 
> If only things were as easy as there seem to be in your mind.  Everyone can just quit eating meat and eat more vegetation, problem solved. Like I said, such a view is naive and short-sighted.


----------



## What 23

Murphy... The eggs you eat... Where do you buy them?


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> It was a parody.
> 
> "What's the point of changing one evil when there are so many other evils in the world? Even if we get rid of one, there will still be all the rest, so we might as well leave it as it is".
> 
> It's that kind of reasoning that ensures the world never improves (and that people can't seen further than their own interests).



its goes both ways.  some people's interest are more focused on superficial ethics which makes them feel all warm and fuzzy but doesn't address any of the problems with genuine solutions.  They feel good when they can feel they are making the "ethical" choice.  So, even when people claim to be making an ethical decision it is in their self interest to avoid feeling guilt and to indulge in the gratification of being pleased with oneself.  I call it smug because you actually don't know what is best for the world, you only think you do.  So, when you assume to know such things you come off with a kind of smugness.

As for objective morality, its supposed to be objectively immoral to lie.  But what if you were hiding a Jew in World war 2 and a nazi came asking if and where you were hiding them.  I don't see things in black and white so its not even a sacrifice of integrity to lie for the greater good.  Ask me if your ass looks fat in those jeans and I will tell you whatever I think you wanna hear.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> Murphy... The eggs you eat... Where do you buy them?


look, im going to become a buddhist monk very soon.
Im preparing myself for my first retreat.
I gave up school, my girlfriend and everything I hold there to devote myself. I will likely wont even have a bed to sleep on, mediate 10 hours per day and eat rice.
this conversation and topic has nothing to do with one individual, but everyone of us.

so far, nobody ever came close to give one argument to defend how acceptable it is to kill another being. theres have been shown how easily we can sustain ourselves without meat. when you do buy meat, you encourage the killing of animals.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> Murphy... The eggs you eat... Where do you buy them?



At least they sell cage-free eggs at the grocery store.


----------



## Ninae

When the standard arguments don't work it just descends into excuses and rationalisations.


----------



## murphythecat

.





turkalurk said:


> its goes both ways.  some people's interest are more focused on superficial ethics which makes them feel all warm and fuzzy but doesn't address any of the problems with genuine solutions.  They feel good when they can feel they are making the "ethical" choice.  So, even when people claim to be making an ethical decision it is in their self interest to avoid feeling guilt and to indulge in the gratification of being pleased with oneself.  I call it smug because you actually don't know what is best for the world, you only think you do.  So, when you assume to know such things you come off with a kind of smugness.
> 
> As for objective morality, its supposed to be objectively immoral to lie.  But what if you were hiding a Jew in World war 2 and a nazi came asking if and where you were hiding them.  I don't see things in black and white so its not even a sacrifice of integrity to lie for the greater good.  Ask me if your ass looks fat in those jeans and I will tell you whatever I think you wanna hear.


your out of thread and you are again making attacks:
_its goes both ways.  some people's interest are more focused on superficial ethics which makes them feel all warm and fuzzy but doesn't address any of the problems with genuine solutions.  They feel good when they can feel they are making the "ethical" choice.  So, even when people claim to be making an ethical decision it is in their self interest to avoid feeling guilt and to indulge in the gratification of being pleased with oneself.  I call it smug because you actually don't know what is best for the world, you only think you do.  So, when you assume to know such things you come off with a kind of smugness._
I would love to eat meat, I used to love meat, but I dont anymore because it involves animal being killed. its not to clear my guilty consciousne, its because I know it would be a much better world if wed all stop buying meat and stop that carnage.

are you serious here. its CLEAR that meat farms are the worst industry on the planet. its the most polluting for the environments and on top of that, kills millions of animals every day.
its fair to say that it would be better for the animals and the planet to stop that industry.
its obvious.

maybe read those links?
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/t...at-production/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...eat_production
https://woods.stanford.edu/environme...al-environment
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get-...ts-meat-eating


----------



## What 23

This is true. The guy didn't even answer my question. He probably buys cheap food.


----------



## What 23

I'd honestly have to say chemical industries like Monsanto are worse, but I doubt you have even heard of them.

Or the prison industrial complex, or pharmaceutical industry... There are at least a few competitors. But you probably ate five dried grams some time ago and saw we are all one and couldn't deal. So now we have this. The poor animals.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> look, im going to become a buddhist monk very soon.
> Im preparing myself for my first retreat.
> I gave up school, my girlfriend and everything I hold there to devote myself. I will likely wont even have a bed to sleep on, mediate 10 hours per day and eat rice.
> this conversation and topic has nothing to do with one individual, but everyone of us.
> 
> so far, nobody ever came close to give one argument to defend how acceptable it is to kill another being. theres have been shown how easily we can sustain ourselves without meat. when you do buy meat, you encourage the killing of animals.



where has this been shown that the entire world can quit eating meat without any signficant impact to the world's delicate ecosystems?  

Buddhism would do ya some good.  I hope you shed some ego and don't attach yourself to the role being more enlightened than everyone else.


----------



## murphythecat

false, meat industry are the worse for the planet. its been shown again and again. its more more polluant industry on the planet.





What 23 said:


> I'd honestly have to say chemical industries like Monsanto are worse.


----------



## murphythecat

what are you talking about?

meat industry DESTROY the delicate ecosystem
it destroy it.
we have destroyed the ecosystem of the seas because we eat fish. we have totally destroyed the seas ecosystem.
the meat we eat comes from farm, not nature. its been a long time the delicate eco system has been destroyed. 

seriously, you make ZERO sense.





turkalurk said:


> where has this been shown that the entire world can quit eating meat without any signficant impact to the world's delicate ecosystems?
> 
> Buddhism would do ya some good.  I hope you shed some ego and don't attach yourself to the role being more enlightened than everyone else.


----------



## What 23

So I guess you know all about their role in potentially ending life on earth as we know it. Rapid loss of pollinators, like bees. The company is trying to cover its ass by engineering bees that can survive its chemical onslaught. It has knocked down the Monarch population- another significant pollinator (and loved insect), with it's sprays and GM crops. I'm sure you have bought into these people. 

You don't think intensive farming- even plant farming, destroys the ecosystems?

(I could be wrong. You most likely have bought into them.)


----------



## turkalurk

you are a funny guy murphy.  the worst thing on this planet eh?  worse than the genocide, rape, and the sex slave industry?  like I said, naive and short sighted.   opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.  Some stink more than others, but smell is a subjective thing as well.  I won't say my shit don't stink, but, at least, I can say I am comfortable with it.


----------



## murphythecat

of course, but much much less then meat farms

http://features.peta2.com/making-the-connection/world-hunger.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/13/less-meat-prevent-climate-change
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/reasons-go-vegan/
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/17/how_eating_less_meat_can_help_feed_the_world/

nuff said





What 23 said:


> So I guess you know all about their role in potentially ending life on earth as we know it.
> 
> You don't think intensive farming- even plant farming, destroys the ecosystems?


----------



## murphythecat

read the links.

its been showed over and over. the worst industry on the planet, the one that detroy the more nautre, is meat farms.

maybe read those links?
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/t...at-production/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...eat_production
https://woods.stanford.edu/environme...al-environment
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get-...ts-meat-eating
http://features.peta2.com/making-the-connection/world-hunger.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/13/less-meat-prevent-climate-change
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/reasons-go-vegan/
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/17/how_eating_less_meat_can_help_feed_the_world/


turkalurk said:


> you are a funny guy murphy.  the worst thing on this planet eh?  worse than the genocide, rape, and the sex slave industry?  like I said, naive and short sighted.   opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.  Some stink more than others, but smell is a subjective thing as well.  I won't say my shit don't stink, but, at least, I can say I am comfortable with it.


its not my opinion, its fact
factual information. this is what lacks into your argumentation. all you say is baseless claims.


----------



## LuGoJ

Ninae said:


> It was a parody.
> 
> "What's the point of changing one evil when there are so many other evils in the world? Even if we get rid of one, there will still be all the rest, so we might as well leave it as it is".
> 
> It's that kind of reasoning that ensures the world never improves (and that people can't seen further than their own interests).



Huh? All I meant was that this thread seems civil when compared to some other threads, then tried to alleviate the tension a bit by attempting to make a joke about how wrong our assumptions of one another can be sometimes. Apologies if you or anyone else took it the wrong way. 

I guess i'll stick to my day job, stand up comic may be a stretch


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> You don't think intensive farming- even plant farming, destroys the ecosystems?


of course.
but at this point, we have to look for the most smart way to feed the population.
CLEARLY, meat is not the smartest way. its actually the worst way.
have you read the links? jeez


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> When the standard arguments don't work it just descends into excuses and rationalisations.



i know, I am still waiting for an actual answer to how the global transition would work.   Why can't we stop arguing about a utopian fairytale and work together against the industry to ensure the animals we eat are treated with respect and dignity instead of pointing fingers and shaming people for being who they naturally are, just because you have different inclinations and feel others must also live as you do.


----------



## murphythecat

read the links


turkalurk said:


> i know, I am still waiting for an actual answer to how the global transition would work.   Why can't we stop arguing about a utopian fairytale and work together against the industry to ensure the animals we eat are treated with respect and dignity instead of pointing fingers and shaming people for being who they naturally are, just because you have different inclinations and feel others must also live as you do.


im not pointing fingers, quite the contrary. I just think people are ignorant to how much damage we all do by eating meat.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> when people have no more argument, they always rely on personal attacks.



you have to be a young cat,  u sound like my 22 year old brother.  Youth can be so idealistic.  Keep the dream alive, bro!


----------



## murphythecat

when people have no more argument, they always rely on personal attacks. 



turkalurk said:


> you have to be a young cat,  u sound like my 22 year old brother.  Youth can be so idealistic.  Keep the dream alive, bro!


----------



## What 23

Anyone heard of the Georgia Guidestones? Reduce human population to a sustainable 500 million.

I don't care about feeding people. I'd actually rather commit genocide. Its much more real.


----------



## murphythecat

still, killing animal would still be immoral and cruel, and violent.
the way to live and be in harmony with life is to be non-violent


What 23 said:


> Anyone heard of the Georgia Guidestones? Reduce human population to a sustainable 500 million.


----------



## What 23

No it isn't.


----------



## turkalurk

update your links! bad sign so many are taken down.  the quality of the source is important to me.


----------



## What 23

I was going to say the same but forgot when one out of the five I clicked on worked.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> i know, I am still waiting for an actual answer to how the global transition would work.   Why can't we stop arguing about a utopian fairytale and work together against the industry to ensure the animals we eat are treated with respect and dignity instead of pointing fingers and shaming people for being who they naturally are, just because you have different inclinations and feel others must also live as you do.



Giving up meat or living as a vegetarian is not sitting on a high horse or living some sort of utopia. More like the least you can do. If you're a vegan or fruitarian it takes a bit more as it's harder to do.

I gave up meat when I was still at school and then both my sisters did. And it's not like we've even thought about it since. So no, it's not some kind of fairytale.


----------



## murphythecat

next time you see a cow, take a knife and go kill it. see how you feel after that. look into the cow eye, and kill it. your hungry, who cares. its just your wonderful human nature to destroy life for your own benefit!





What 23 said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> That doesn't really have much to do with the Georgia Guidestones and reducing the human population and keeping it around 500 million.


----------



## murphythecat

lol





turkalurk said:


> update your links! bad sign so many are taken down.  the quality of the source is important to me.


----------



## turkalurk

turkalurk said:


> you have to be a young cat,  u sound like my 22 year old brother.  Youth can be so idealistic.  Keep the dream alive, bro!



hehehe, you poor idealistic young fella.  You must be sensitive to take such things so personally!


----------



## What 23

There was a time when everything to me went raw. I was against people playing GTA or simulated violence because of what it resonated with. It wasn't necessarily that I was wrong... But I'm glad I'm not there right now.

I was eating a lot of chocolate at the time.. Dark chocolate. It messes with stress hormones. It was a magical time...

I don't want to go kill a cow. I don't eat their meat. I rarely if ever eat red meat (though, my body recognizes welcomes and uses CLA-- only found in their fat). The closest to red meat I eat is organ meat from mutated dinosaurs. If however I was and my family was starving or just hungry and needed to keep their strength up, and there was nothing else that could supply vital nutrients... I would kill it. No problem. I would have killed it when I was against even simulated violence.

Read the GTA thread and you'll see how much I was against violence. Haha. Now... Well, sometimes I really do want to kill 99.93% of human kind, or at least have them be gone. Life is sometimes about having armor to survive it. And putting aside feeling good.


----------



## Ninae

You're talking to yourself now?


----------



## Erikmen

Ha!


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> next time you see a cow, take a knife and go kill it. see how you feel after that. look into the cow eye, and kill it. your hungry, who cares. its just your wonderful human nature to destroy life for your own benefit!



It is also an assumption that I need to kill to eat meat.  I could eat the claws of crabs.  I can eat roadkill.  I can eat something killed from something else, which is what I am doing.  If the animal is already dead, even Buddhist monks would rather eat it than see it spoil.

If i did my own hunting I would only hunt envasive species.  I would avoid killing mammals if they weren't over-populated, but if my resources were limited I would kill it in the most humane way possible and I would pay my respects and show gratitude to the animal and the world for providing me sustenance.


----------



## What 23

I will say that a high meat diet is unsustainable and really really horrible on the environment. But much of what humans do is unsustainable. I'm not sure how much faith I have in our sustaining this way of life... And still think the problem is more our masses and our system and way of living. Perhaps we can organize ourselves to where we can all survive and reach 9 billion 18 billion 36 billion... But I don't see it happening smoothly and would prefer it not be "wrong" for me to enjoy a fish if I can/want. I know my body was designed to digest meat. I know my brain probably got this big because of meat. I know that some think hunting and language happened in good parts together.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Giving up meat or living as a vegetarian is not sitting on a high horse or living some sort of utopia. More like the least you can do. If you're a vegan or fruitarian it takes a bit more as it's harder to do.
> 
> I gave up meat when I was still at school and then both my sisters did. And it's not like we've even thought about it since. So no, it's not some kind of fairytale.



again out of context, veganism as an individual preference, like I said, is a beautiful choice to make.  I admire those people, until they push those beliefs as ethical principles that every decent human being ought to follow.  then they are being smug about it.  You are pushing a principle that can't be universalized at our present stage of development.  It is not feasible for everyone to quit eating meat like that is a one fix all solution to the problem.


----------



## murphythecat

you said it 10 times already, and weve answered you.
it is feasable and its the only option if we want to feed everyone on the planet, protect the environments and also be more kind to other sentient beings.

its so costly in terms of water and food to feed meat farms, that we could feed everyone on the planet if we were to stop the meat farms.

seriously, be informed on the subject because you are ignorant right now. 




turkalurk said:


> again out of context, veganism as an individual preference, like I said, is a beautiful choice to make.  I admire those people, until they push those beliefs as ethical principles that every decent human being ought to follow.  then they are being smug about it.  You are pushing a principle that can't be universalized at our present stage of development.  It is not feasible for everyone to quit eating meat like that is a one fix all solution to the problem.


----------



## Ninae

No, the world would fall apart if it happened over night, but it could well happen gradually like many things have changed.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> You're talking to yourself now?



I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## turkalurk

which is the point I have been making all along.  If you want to revolutionize the world you must have a contigency plan.  When the food synthesizers come onto market, change will be easy for all.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> you said it 10 times already, and weve answered you.
> it is feasable and its the only option if we want to feed everyone on the planet, protect the environments and also be more kind to other sentient beings.
> 
> its so costly in terms of water and food to feed meat farms, that we could feed everyone on the planet if we were to stop the meat farms.
> 
> seriously, be informed on the subject because you are ignorant right now.



excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I don't find incredulous rebuttals very convincing as I have already implied I disagree with your opinion.  Please show me some contigency plans from a working, credible, and reliable source.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> Anyone heard of the Georgia Guidestones? Reduce human population to a sustainable 500 million.
> 
> I don't care about feeding people. I'd actually rather commit genocide. Its much more real.



I understand your sentiment, but when you say things like that it makes me want to distance myself as it sounds pretty sociopathic.


----------



## What 23

I understand your sentiment .


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> You're talking to yourself now?



Good to hear i am not the only one who disregards basically all of what23's stimulant rants


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I don't find incredulous rebuttals very convincing as I have already implied I disagree with your opinion.  Please show me some contigency plans from a working, credible, and reliable source.


your the one claiming it cant be done..
your the one who should show evidence as to how and why it cant be done.
your whole basis of your argument is not based upon morality, but based on assumption that it couldnt be done.


----------



## What 23

I don't take stimulants, willow. Yerba Mate, caffeine- yes. But I'm "this way" without caffeine. (And) Attacked for being on meth.

This "misguided" fellow actually knows who she was referring to, also, and it wasn't me. Wake up. Pay attention. Maybe take a stimulant. Haha.


----------



## RichardMooner

I don't really believe that eating animal based products is ethical, nor unethical, on an individual basis. If making individual contributions to the unethical practices of globalized industries and oppressive systems is also considered unethical, it is absolutely impossible to refrain from unethical practices while living in a westernized society. Simply my existence as a white, sis, male-- makes a contribution to the systemic oppression of ethnic minorities, women, the impoverished, the LGBTQ community, etc..etc.. Does that make my existence unethical? I don't believe so. 

The meat industry has had a terrible and massive impact on the environment, via deforestation. Brazil is ranked fourth place for climate pollution, and 75% of their green house gas discharge can be attributed to deforestation of the Amazon for cattle ranching. More than one half of the Earth's rainforest cover has been destroyed, and God knows how many species have gone extinct, or are endangered because of it.  80% of the deforestation for crop farming can be attributed to the meat industry as well. All in all, the meat industry is a massive detriment to the environment, but so is the burning of fossil fuels, and I guarantee that the vast majority of the people here....even the vegetarians.....still drive their cars, still use petroleum based products, still use indoor heating, and still use electricity. In fact, I guarantee that everyone here uses electricity. 

You could say that you don't eat meat because of how the animals in the meat industry are treated, but hundreds of thousands of innocent middle easterners have been victims of mass genocide due to a war over the oil industry. So where does that leave us?

As far as nutrition goes, I think that our inevitable death is mainly determined by genetic factors. Not to say that eating a shit ton of fast food isn't going to hurt you, but I don't think that cutting meat out of your diet is going to effect your long term health significantly.

To answer the OP's original question, vegetarianism/veganism is great, but I think that it is more symbolic than anything. 

Great topic, by the way.


----------



## Ninae

It might be more symbolic in the context of just one person, but when there are millions and millions it makes a real differerence, and it's also a growing trend so it will continue to make a difference. What makes it easy to excuse for most is that they see it only in the context of themselves so they say it wouldn't make any difference either way, but when there are many who think like that they could make a difference. That's how differences are really made, one at a time.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> It might be more symbolic in the context of just one person, but when there are millions and millions it makes a real differerence, and it's also a growing trend so it will continue to make a difference. What makes it easy to excuse for most is that they see it only in the context of themselves so they say it wouldn't make any difference either way, but when there are many who think like that they could make a difference. That's how differences are really made, one at a time.



I would like to think that it would be that easy, but there are too many countries that are dependent on agriculture for everyone to just stop eating meat and shut down the meat industry. 

We need to get to the root of the problem ie; capitalism. We can't reduce it to it's parts and try to solve problems individually because they don't exist in a vacuum. The meat industry is just a pawn on a chessboard.


----------



## Ninae

I disagree, I think eating meat or not is more of a personal issue. The feeling of not wanting to contribute to the killind of animals or feeling revulsion at the the thought of eating flesh is quite real and can enable you to make many sacrifices. 

And like I keep saying, we have to start somewhere. Anywhere is better than nothing. What we need is for more people to start somewhere. You can't just think it must all be fixed at the same time or nothing because it can't happen that way. We don't need to wait for capitalism to end before doing something for animals. That's a cop-out. 

Excuses, excuses. By the way, I should be a politician. Turns out I'm not actually that bad when I turn my mind to serious topics like that. Could cause some grief in the Politics section, I reckon, if I could be bothered.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> your the one claiming it cant be done..
> your the one who should show evidence as to how and why it cant be done.
> your whole basis of your argument is not based upon morality, but based on assumption that it couldnt be done.



yes, I am making inferences about the implications of your call for revolution to change everyone's diet in the name of your personal moral duty based on premises only assumed to be true.  But, that's all any of us can do, is it not?  You seem to agree that my premises are accurate because you said farming would just be the lesser of two evils. I would rather  find  a real solution not just change the dynamics of the problem.  

Shouldn't it be up to the one who expects the world to change to be the one to prove that it can work?

Let me reiterate.  we have a huge population of animals.  populations left unchecked expand exponentially until they run out of resources.  We are also expanding exponentially.  There is only so much space and resources.  Where are these animals and their expanding populations going to live when we clear their homes to make room for all the farming it would take to feed the entire world population?


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> I don't take stimulants, willow. Yerba Mate, caffeine- yes. But I'm "this way" without caffeine. (And) Attacked for being on meth.
> 
> This "misguided" fellow actually knows who she was referring to, also, and it wasn't me. Wake up. Pay attention. Maybe take a stimulant. Haha.



he was confused because I edited my post to include the quote I had forgotten.

I just realized she didn't quote me and you were between our posts so she could have been talking to you.  I thought she quoted me.


----------



## What 23

She posted about a minute after my post. You quoted yourself, above my post. Deduction, Jack.


----------



## murphythecat

I see you havent even read any of my links nor tried to do some research on your own
do some research and all your answers will be answered



turkalurk said:


> yes, I am making inferences about the implications of your call for revolution to change everyone's diet in the name of your personal moral duty based on premises only assumed to be true.  But, that's all any of us can do, is it not?  You seem to agree that my premises are accurate because you said farming would just be the lesser of two evils. I would rather  find  a real solution not just change the dynamics of the problem.
> 
> Shouldn't it be up to the one who expects the world to change to be the one to prove that it can work?
> 
> Let me reiterate.  we have a huge population of animals.  populations left unchecked expand exponentially until they run out of resources.  We are also expanding exponentially.  There is only so much space and resources.  Where are these animals and their expanding populations going to live when we clear their homes to make room for all the farming it would take to feed the entire world population?


----------



## What 23

I didn't catch it, Murphy, but did you fix the links? The first three or so (that I checked) were dead.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I see you havent even read any of my links nor tried to do some research on your own
> do some research and all your answers will be answered


click in your links and you will see what I meant by you need to update them.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> I disagree, I think eating meat or not is more of a personal issue. The feeling of not wanting to contribute to the killind of animals or feeling revulsion at the the thought of eating flesh is quite real and can enable you to make many sacrifices.
> 
> And like I keep saying, we have to start somewhere. Anywhere is better than nothing. What we need is for more people to start somewhere. You can't just think it must all be fixed at the same time or nothing because it can't happen that way. We don't need to wait for capitalism to end before doing something for animals. That's a cop-out.
> 
> Excuses, excuses. By the way, I should be a politician. Turns out I'm not actually that bad when I turn my mind to serious topics like that. Could cause some grief in the Politics section, I reckon, if I could be bothered.



The first part of your post kind of reinforces my original point....choosing to eat meat or not is a personal choice, not an efficient one. 

We do start somewhere, but it can't start with the destruction of the meat industry because that also entails the destruction of the economies that are dependent on it. We start by changing the development of civilization and industry as a whole because it will always overpower a reductionistic approach to individual problems.

I'm not "copping out", I'm just being pragmatic.


----------



## turkalurk

RichardMooner said:


> The first part of your post kind of reinforces my original point....choosing to eat meat or not is a personal choice, not an efficient one.
> 
> We do start somewhere, but it can't start with the destruction of the meat industry because that also entails the destruction of the economies that are dependent on it. We start by changing the development of civilization and industry as a whole because it will always overpower a reductionistic approach to individual problems.
> 
> I'm not "copping out", I'm just being pragmatic.



thanks for your contributions to the discussion!  good points!


----------



## swilow

^Yes indeed, Richard always has a lot of good to contribute to these sort of threads. I hope he continues.  



turkalurk said:


> At least they sell cage-free eggs at the grocery store.



Cage free, barn laid:








turkalurk said:


> I told you how to address my points.  Post some studies done.



Studies on what? How can you study the benefits of non-existence vs existence? Bear in mind, you bought that up, not anyone else. You made the claim that suffering and alive is better then not. I am highly sceptical of such claims, but they fall well outside the paramaters of plausible enquiry. 



> You keep acting like eating meat is inherently wrong which has little to do with inhumane business practices.



I haven't once said that eating meat is inherently wrong. I think causing suffering to others is inherently wrong, and I believe that modern agricultural practise causes suffering to animals, to the environment and, therefore, to humans. I think that this could be done ethically and sustainably and economically but until people get over feeling they have the right to cheap meat.



> I have stated from the get go my goal is to present an argument that it can be ethical to eat meat



But your first post said:

_"In other words, I respect all the varying opinions to varying degrees, but veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization"._

Are you trying to say that meat eating can be done ethically or that veganism/vegetarianism is less ethical then eating meat? Now you've said both. Which is why I guess you are mistakenly seeing condemnation from me towards your choices, of which there has been none. There is a tendency to see behaviours in others we are exhibiting (I guess I could be doing this too )

FWIW, I don't really understand why you keep referring to Kant so I hope you would explain this some more. I am not overly familiar with his writing myself.



What 23 said:


> I don't take stimulants, willow. Yerba Mate, caffeine- yes. But I'm "this way" without caffeine. (And) Attacked for being on meth.
> 
> This "misguided" fellow actually knows who she was referring to, also, and it wasn't me. Wake up. Pay attention. Maybe take a stimulant. Haha.



Sorry, it was wishful thinking. I guess I find your attitudes so inconsistent and detached from reality that I assumed you were on drugs, in the same way you keep assuming that people in this thread who display feelings towards animals that are different to your own must be on, or effected by, psychedelics. So I'm sure you can understand my presumption  And I wasn't attacking you for it; perhaps it might even help to order your thoughts and even edit them somewhat?  But sorry for assuming that about you, it is a bit stupid...


----------



## RichardMooner

willow11 said:


> Sorry, it was wishful thinking. I guess I find your attitudes so inconsistent and detached from reality that I assumed you were on drugs, in the same way you keep assuming that people in this thread who display feelings towards animals that are different to your own must be on, or effected by, psychedelics. So I'm sure you can understand my presumption  And I wasn't attacking you for it; perhaps it might even help to order your thoughts and even edit them somewhat?  But sorry for assuming that about you, it is a bit stupid...



Bluelight is great for stims! I should probably be studying as of current, but I'm coming down and don't have any good downers at hand, and Bluelight is a great distraction....So here I am. Haha.


----------



## What 23

willow11 said:


> Sorry, it was wishful thinking. I guess I find your attitudes so inconsistent and detached from reality that I assumed you were on drugs, in the same way you keep assuming that people in this thread who display feelings towards animals that are different to your own must be on, or effected by, psychedelics. So I'm sure you can understand my presumption  And I wasn't attacking you for it; perhaps it might even help to order your thoughts and even edit them somewhat?  But sorry for assuming that about you, it is a bit stupid...



Detached from reality, as if you have a proper grip on it?

I have a spectrum of feelings on issues. Bluelight however is flooded with people who are hyper-liberal-leftist, so I have to fight it. Murphythecat also admitted he is a psych user (which, psychs do dissolve borders/boundaries, somewhat, and can leave people feeling rather raw and sensitive, in my experience, but I'm still ignorant and probably shouldnt have said it...). 

I have never said and have always denied sans the possibility of it being in ecstasy back in the day, that I have used meth.

I'm the kind of person that feels bad keeping animals inside houses. I hate seeing birds inside of cages in facilities I service. There are no windows. No fresh air. Just a glass cage and fake stuff. They are just there to entertain people that do nothing but watch TV and eat and eat medication. My one question about them to a nurse was if they get out ever, and supposedly they are cycled every month or three, and go to live in sanctuaries of sorts. This brought me relief. So don't assume I don't have "feelings".

And you really wonder why I wish 99.93% of humans would just be dispatched? I mean, do you?  Humans can take the hit. The planet can't take much more of us. I tire of our stroking ourselves for saving Africans that are trying to illegally cross the Mediterranean into Europe. I tire of the guilt people place on each other and expectation of natural empathy and identity for ones family to extend to other tribes (and if not, you are evil bigoted racist!!!). In ways I like that the world is talking... In ways I want to be like God and scatter it. 

I am active.

It is not wrong to eat meat. Our current state is out of balance.

That being said, I wish I could live off of solar energy. And I was a robot. I'd sit on a mountain and soak the rays, and probably wouldn't move for 10,000 years. Maybe Iguana my head about and dance sometimes. I don't know.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> It is not wrong to eat meat.



I see violence, lack of compassion and suffering when killing a innocent animal.

dont you think violence is wrong?


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Studies on what? How can you study the benefits of non-existence vs existence?
> 
> Are you trying to say that meat eating can be done ethically or that veganism/vegetarianism is less ethical then eating meat? Now you've said both. Which is why I guess you are mistakenly seeing condemnation from me towards your choices, of which there has been none. There is a tendency to see behaviours in others we are exhibiting (I guess I could be doing this too )
> 
> FWIW, I don't really understand why you keep referring to Kant...



we are arguing ethics, and kant is a known philosopher who formulated ethical principles.  it was said that there is no logical defense for eating meat.  I was merely presenting an example of a logical argument  based on the first ethical principle that came to mind.  I could formulate many logical arguments based on different principles of ethics like utilitarianism, consequentialism, egoism, intellectualism, welfarism, etc.

Not everyone shares the same code of ethics, so it is unfair to assume that because someone makes different choices they aren't considering the ethical implications of their actions.

Based on some principles veganism can be considered less ethical, based on other ethical principles it is more ethical.  So, it becomes a matter of preference and I prefer meat.

I give up on asking you not to take what I say out of context.  you keep trying to debate the ethics of the meat industry when I have made it clear my issues are with those who say eating meat by itself is wrong.  In fact, it was said killing any sentient being is wrong.  Its like you think I have been talking to you this whole time and have been ignoring the rest of the discussion I have been having with murphy.  You want to take my conversation with him, and apply it to your beliefs, but if you don't have a problem with eating meat and are ok with other's decision to eat meat, then my comments have not been directed at you.  I think you may be onto something with that projection thing, I am glad you are aware it could be you that is projecting inaccurate implications into my words.


----------



## What 23

No. Violence is just an escalation of natural force.


----------



## murphythecat

What 23 said:


> No. Violence is just an escalation of natural force.


nothing natural when it comes from human. we have the choice and possibility to eat food that isnt stained with blood.
Violent behavior is a choice in our society, a deliberate choice that can be changed


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I see violence, lack of compassion and suffering when killing a innocent animal.
> 
> dont you think violence is wrong?



not always, but it should be a last resort.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> not always, but it should be a last resort.


and we are so far from the last resort that as in now, its totally unacceptable to continue the massacre.

and as soon as someone buy meat, he contribute to the massacre


----------



## turkalurk

it can be said that man is from nature, so his choices are based on his nature.


----------



## murphythecat

hey, why not use that for everything
rape is natural
killing a child is natural
killing millions of animal everyday is natural
destroying nature is natural
everything is acceptable, nothing is wrong, its all natural



turkalurk said:


> it can be said that man is from nature, so all things are natural.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> and we are so far from the last resort that as in now, its totally unacceptable to continue the massacre.
> 
> and as soon as someone buy meat, he contribute to the massacre



I see no more reason to carry on this back and forth.  I think I have made my point.  I don't expect my reasoning to persuade anyone to change their mind and neither should you.  Its a matter of perspective and we obviously see things differently.  I was only hoping to open your mind to a bigger picture so that you might see the 50 shades of grey that I see, instead of just black or white.  Come back to me after you become a Buddhist monk!


----------



## What 23

So natural means good? And unnatural is bad?
Volcanos are natural. They both create and destroy.

And at some point down the evolutionary tree my 'father' raped my 'mom', or the other way around. Somewhere along the line my mom may have been a something kinda like a praying mantis in that she may have consumed my father. Of course, I'm speaking billions of years ago. But was she wrong to do it? My God the violence-- couldn't she have waited? Who the fuck are you to say? I'm glad he raped her. And I'm glad I have a skull and a backbone and a warrior instinct.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> hey, why not use that for everything
> rape is natural
> killing a child is natural
> killing millions of animal everyday is natural
> destroying nature is natural
> everything is acceptable, nothing is wrong, its all natural




i never said just because something is natural means its always right.  That's absurd.  I just never liked the word unnatural because it supports the idea that we exist seperately from Nature and not as a part of it.  If we destroy the world, then the world destroyed itself.  I have faith the world will survive and progress.  All this suffering will not be in vain! I see purpose in everything.  I am far from a cynical person.


----------



## What 23

Not you sorry. I don't really find myself in much disagreement with you to note so far. Not that I expect you to not disagree with me  or that I'm trying to win you to the dark side or something.


----------



## murphythecat

can you control volcanos?

each individual can only control and reflect on their own action they want to make and the impact it has on their feelings and feelings of others.

Ive never talked about praying mantis, and Im not here to judge their way of living. but Im a human, and as a human, its quite evident that theres better way to live, act then others.



What 23 said:


> So natural means good? And unnatural is bad?
> Volcanos are natural. They both create and destroy.
> 
> And at some point down the tree my father raped my mom, or the other way around. Somewhere along the line my mom may have been a something kinda like a praying mantis in that she may have consumed my father. Of course, I'm speaking billions of years ago. But was she wrong to do it? Who the fuck are you to say?


so, are you saying now that rape is natural
killing children is natural

and that we shouldnt condemn those who do and try to make them see how bad it is for the well being of the victims?

lets look at the most cruel animal on the planet, compare ourselves to them, and legitimate our bad action saying, well, we are at least not acting like the worst animal on the planet: we are not praying mantis!


----------



## What 23

Well the one time I was in an earthquake (Indiana doesn't get many) I had been playing Quake for the first time in like a decade (7y?) and had just fallen into a pit of magma, so I'll get back to you on that one when I figure out "control".

In the pit was the avatar of a girl who fell in before me, who I had a thought to ask, flirting, if she had red hair, but I didn't say anything. It was the fire... My answer (yea) came to me moments after- her revealing this in a conversation with someone else (the one girl, guys are going to talk to her), before the quake. 

I was playing Quake because my Xbox red-ringed. This "Red ring of death" as people came to call it is an indicator that the system needs repaired. I overheated it for about a month by keeping all the heat in to fuse what needed to be (heat sink perhaps, or another connection), but finally it needed repaired to work again.

Wrong thread haha. I mean...

Anyways, "the universe is hostile, so impersonal, devour to survive...".


Have you ever fasted?


----------



## What 23

Praying mantids aren't bad. Yes rape is natural. So is exploiting weakness. 

I wouldn't just condemn someone who raped my wife. I'd kill them. Ideally. But watch the liberal parade condemn me for this. Oh the horror. The violence. No... Now this guy is your responsibility. Now he gets to live off of your resources. Because it is right! And moral! And no violence! Yay for society and caring!


----------



## RichardMooner

You guys are arguing senselessly. You're not going to get anywhere trying to justify moral convictions using logic.


----------



## ebola?

...especially when most people aren't explaining the conceptual bases of their ethical reasoning. . .

ebola


----------



## swilow

What 23 said:


> Praying mantids aren't bad. Yes rape is natural. So is exploiting weakness.
> 
> I wouldn't just condemn someone who raped my wife. I'd kill them. Ideally. But watch the liberal parade condemn me for this. Oh the horror. The violence. No... Now this guy is your responsibility. Now he gets to live off of your resources. Because it is right! And moral! And no violence! Yay for society and caring!



I can't even tell who you are arguing with.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> I can't even tell who you are arguing with.


doesn't surprise me!  he is talking with your buddy murphy who believes clearing more land for farming is a better alternative than eating meat.  If you haven't been following his posts its no wonder you keep confusing the context of my discussion with him.


----------



## RichardMooner

turkalurk said:


> doesn't surprise me!  he is talking with your buddy murphy who believes clearing more land for farming is a better alternative than eating meat.  If you haven't been following his posts its no wonder you keep confusing the context of my discussion with him.



If people stopped eating meat, we would be overstocked with land because 80% of crops are cultivated to feed livestock. No need to clear anymore.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> I can't even tell who you are arguing with.
> doesn't surprise me! he is talking with your buddy murphy who believes clearing more land for farming is a better alternative than eating meat.



I hate to do this, but I think that the discussion might benefit if you address the points I posed to you earlier:



			
				me said:
			
		

> Your argument rests on a couple of flawed assumptions. It's problematic that:
> 1. Farming plants directly tends to be a great deal more calorically efficient than animal husbandry, so rather than our depending on farming meat, its inefficiency tends to exacerbate hunger. Yes, I guess there are pasture lands that could not be effectively used otherwise (and I'm not saying that they should), but these are exceptional.
> 2. You speak as if we actually interact with ecosystems depending on apex predators; rather, we herd animals under highly controlled conditions, and thus without our upkeep, these populations would not exist. Eg, populations of cows would not swell if we discontinued farming them. Your argument would make more sense if most of us hunted.



Also, it might be useful to explore this:


> Okay. So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?



And I mean in terms of your generalized framework.  From this, you should be able to derive your particular case for eating meat (or if you justify your views on human carnivory on more specialized ethical grounds, these warrant explanation and should be squared with your wider ethical framework).  I was also relatedly interested in an explanation of how your picture squared with Kantian reasoning (as you claimed earlier).

_Generalized discussion note:_
I think that people need to be a bit more careful when trying to disprove others' arguments via _reductio ad absurdum_, as if you're not careful, you can mischaracterize your discussant's views in the course of showing them to lead to undermining consequents.  I have seen that in this thread, in a couple cases to the point of the 'rebuttal' hardly making sense. 

ebola


----------



## infectedmushroom

Ninae said:


> Not just affect profits, the industry would have to be completely re-orgiansed, with more acres of land to grow food, etc. It would be an enormous project and things would be both harder to produce and less profitable to sell, so there's not much enthusiasm for it, to say the least. It's ok if a few people turn vegetarian for health reasons, etc. but for the vast majority to is very undesired.
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of thinking is the reason things never change. If everyone just stopped over night it would stop. If 50% of us stopped half of it would stop. But it takes one and one at a time, over a long period, for something like this to actually change.
> 
> It's just what it takes, so it's confused to see it as pointless. It would only be pointless if only you did it, which it can seem like from your own limited viewpoint, but is not how it turns out when more change the way they live. If everyone thought like that at the start there would be no vegetarians, when now the 5-10% there are makes a real change.



I did not say it was pointless and I don't think I suggested it was either, my main point was it takes time, and people are greedy.

TBH I think it pompous you believe i'm confused, Ninae, but I don't want to make this argument personal.


----------



## What 23

Beautiful (a killer, new dad, Perigrene Falcon)






----

My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy. 

I am receptive- very receptive to the fact that humans damage our environment, and inflict suffering (and potentially bring about an end to that, in an undesirable way, i.e. extinction). I see it largely a problem nestled with our greater mismanagement problem. 

As one said, perhaps the most ethical thing one could do is suicide.
...Or mass murder.

I like the idea of eating more bugs.
That might be better for the environment.

In ways, I don't really have an argument. But I just can't consider eating life to be bad in and of itself.


----------



## swilow

what23 said:
			
		

> My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU. We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.



I agree with you here by and large (gasp!). I think that earth is utterly neutral really, and that nothing that has happened here has any actual intrinsic value to the planet. I guess that makes the human experience that much stranger, that we have somehow got to where we are (for good or bad) against the odds and with no help. Which is part of the reason I think we should try and at least create a natural world for animals we farm, to give them a chance at developing. It sounds a bit hippy-nonsense, but I do believe that if humans have rights, so do animals. Neither party need be more important then the other.


----------



## What 23

I agree.

I think humans have a huge potential... But we lack perspective. 

I wish we could change our habit...


----------



## Journyman16

murphythecat said:


> what are you talking about?
> 
> meat industry DESTROY the delicate ecosystem
> it destroy it.
> we have destroyed the ecosystem of the seas because we eat fish. we have totally destroyed the seas ecosystem.
> the meat we eat comes from farm, not nature. its been a long time the delicate eco system has been destroyed.


You might want to think through your choice of words a little more. We haven't _DESTROYED_ anything, we have changed things. The sea still lives and has billions of life forms in it. The ecosystems that farms have re[placed are still around and, although arguably in danger in some places, are certainly not 'destroyed.'

And the point about Monsanto can be echoed about vegetable farms and grains - monoculture farms, which is what we would need to feed everyone on non-animal foods, are horrendously bad for environments. Just as Monsanto risks our entire future by killing off diversity, and poisoning the pollinators as well as us, monoculture farming causes large swathes of land become inhospitable to 'natural life forms. Those animals and insects then adapt to eat the foods we are growing where they once lived and then we kill them off with pesticides.

Eating meat isn't 'wrong' just because greed makes people treat animals badly, GREED is wrong. We will not resolve any problems while we try to demonise things that aren't a problem, and in spite of rhetoric, eating animals IS natural. Lots of animals do it. It's not eating them that is wrong, it's setting up and glorifying systems that demand everybody get all they can for themselves and bugger the rest. It's programming people to BUY! BUY! BUY! at all costs (I like puns :D) so the ultra-rich can get even richer and THAT focus on riches and power is why we have producers with zero empathy for the produce, and that includes the vegetables.

We've allowed the God of Money to overwrite even normal commonsense and now we risk our world so the Rothschilds and others can add another zero or two to their wealth.


----------



## -=SS=-

What 23 said:


> My main problem is the way it is being presented. *"The poor animals!". It is annoying.* It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.



At last! Someone else to say what needs to be said!

I get real tired of hearing about the poor animals and how killing is wrong, is violent, bla bla bla. Animals kill animals all the damn time. Some even play with their kills before the thing has died, torturing them if you will. That's just how it is. That is nature. Period.

The mouse exists to feed the cat. The bug exists to feed the mouse. Microbes in dirt exist to feed the bug. Everything is eating everything else, it's how life is constructed on this planet. Why is that fact so hard to understand. You choosing to go all limp and have a moral dilemma over eating flesh is all in your head, nothing more. Factory farming as we have established has a lot of reforming to do, but the act of farming itself.. nothing wrong with that at all. 

I think this debate has kind of covered all the points really after 20 or so pages. I'm out.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It annoys you because - deep down - you know it's true.

"The poor Africans." It is annoying (to racists).
"The poor women." It is annoying (to sexists).



> It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.



We don't live by the same laws as the animal kingdom.
We have a responsibility to try and do the right thing, because we are human.
There are many benefits to being human... This responsibility we are given is a blessing and a curse.

Nobody lives like animals, yet they say "we're animals" when they want to justify misdeeds... The fact that sharks kill ruthlessly and have no regard for the consequences of their actions, doesn't mean we need to follow suit.

The shark doesn't know any better. We do.
And the damage we're doing is considerably greater.



> It sounds a bit hippy-nonsense, but I do believe that if humans have rights, so do animals. Neither party need be more important then the other.



It's not hippy nonsense.


----------



## ebola?

One way of summing up this type of approach is in terms of "fairness" or reciprocity: because animals naturally wreak great suffering on one another, they don't deserve our efforts to minimize their suffering.  I believe this approach flawed, as it doesn't make sense to regard beings who aren't capable ethical agents in this way; we shouldn't expect animals to regard others with reciprocity due to their cognitive limitations, so it thus doesn't make sense to penalize them for such.  Ergo, I prefer an ethic or care or compassion in this domain.

ebola


----------



## socko

ForEverAfter said:


> It annoys you because - deep down - you know it's true.
> 
> "The poor Africans." It is annoying (to racists).
> "The poor women." It is annoying (to sexists).


Their main point is what23 said: *THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We...*. We tend to romanticize nature and to attribute human qualities to animals that they probably don't have, at least not the way we imagine. The wilderness and nature are violent and deadly. I know first hand because I have spent a lot of time living and traveling in the wilderness. It's easy to die out there and be eaten ...



> ebola----- One way of summing up this type of approach is in terms of "fairness" or reciprocity: because animals naturally wreak great suffering on one another, they don't deserve our efforts to minimize their suffering. I believe this approach flawed, as it doesn't make sense to regard beings who aren't capable ethical agents in this way; we shouldn't expect animals to regard others with reciprocity due to their cognitive limitations, so it thus doesn't make sense to penalize them for such. Ergo, I prefer an ethic or care or compassion in this domain.


I agree. Unlike animals, we can choose compassion.


----------



## infectedmushroom

"The poor animals." It is annoying (to animal haters. anti-animalists? what's the correct term here?)


----------



## Ninae

What 23 said:


> My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.



Not at all. The hatred comes from humanity. The earth is full of love. The plant kingdom is full of a love and peace that is perceptible. The animals act on instinct and don't have free will like we do. They're innocent. And if humanity changed the way we relate to each other and the rest of the earth the animals would also change. We are the ones who set the tone or create the consciousness for this world. 

You can laugh off this all you want but it's true. To begin with this world was a paradise and it was first when humans started to turn against one another that the animals changed. There was no murder in the Garden of Eden. If it had been it wouldn't have been a paradise. Stop trying to make up excuses to defend evil. It's depressing and degrading to your spirit.


----------



## murphythecat

whats funny, its people for the killing of animal keep repeating the same argument over and over:
1- the cycle of life is based upon killing
2- killing is everywhere in nature
3- nothing wrong with killing, we have to eat

im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome


----------



## turkalurk

RichardMooner said:


> If people stopped eating meat, we would be overstocked with land because 80% of crops are cultivated to feed livestock. No need to clear anymore.




That is a good point, but these animals are still alive and still have to eat, and we won't be killing  them so their populatiins would still grow out of control.  Without killing animals the competition for space still remains inevitable.


I have asked people to post some statistics, some studies, some kind of contingency plan explaining how the world could transition.

I admit, this is a topic I have never debated or thought too much about.  Which is why I have agreed that it is ignorance due to my laziness.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> I hate to do this, but I think that the discussion might benefit if you address the points I posed to you earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it might be useful to explore this:
> 
> 
> And I mean in terms of your generalized framework.  From this, you should be able to derive your particular case for eating meat (or if you justify your views on human carnivory on more specialized ethical grounds, these warrant explanation and should be squared with your wider ethical framework).  I was also relatedly interested in an explanation of how your picture squared with Kantian reasoning (as you claimed earlier).
> 
> _Generalized discussion note:_
> I think that people need to be a bit more careful when trying to disprove others' arguments via _reductio ad absurdum_, as if you're not careful, you can mischaracterize your discussant's views in the course of showing them to lead to undermining consequents.  I have seen that in this thread, in a couple cases to the point of the 'rebuttal' hardly making sense.
> 
> ebola



I believe I did respond to your post the first time you posted it.  I was only offering an alternative view.  I am sorry if I made the impression that my food preferences are based on ethical principles, but as I have said they simply aren't that thought out.  I get hungry and I eat.  I liked Kant's universalization, but in a serious ethical debate where I applily my personal code of ethics, I don't believe I could say I personally feel that it is right for me to take a life from my fellow family of non-envasive mammals to eat it, if I can find a healthy alternative.  The closer the species is to being human, the more compassion and empathy I feel for it.  I used to let empathy run my life, but I have grown to have a balance between empathy and self-preservation.  Too much empathy can cripple a person.  I have tried to change my diet, I don't possess the will power to do it on my own.  When I was younger I tried to talk my family into it, but I couldn't resist the temptation of my love of eating meat.  I suppose its an addiction as I savor the flavor of a good steak that melts in my mouth.  What can I say, as much as I hate to admit it, I live a hedonistic lifestyle motivated by superficial gratification of my senses.

 If I explained how I ought to live my life based on this code, than I would also have to explain how I wouldn't be sacrificing an amount of integrity when it comes to my diet.  Kant's universalization loses its appeal when you apply the murderer situation where Kant suggests one still ought not tell a lie.  I would rather sacrifice my integrity and become a liar than to tell a murderer where to find his prey.

Its easy for me to claim meat eating can be universalized because we already eat meat and have been for tens of thousands of years.  Veganism as a global diet has not been experienced so the implications can only be assumed.  To decide ethics we must be able to predict the consequences to decide which diet would truly bring the most good with the least amount of harm.  I have said not to expect me to take your word for the statistics that support veganism as the ethical diet for the human population.  I feel since vegans want change, they should provide some verifiable evidence that supports their contingency plan of just switching from meat to vegetables.

I am speaking on behave of those who might have ethical codes that do not conflict with eating meat, but I do not want to confuse you by implying I eat meat as an ethical decision.  

I have also offered a compromise that is soon to occur in the next 50 years, if not sooner.  We can already grow body parts in a lab through stem cells derived from the pig intestine.  I am all for promoting technology to grow animal muscles.  I believe technological advancements are more likely to revolutionize the world's diet than debates on ethical principles.

To be honest, I mostly listen to my conscience when making ethical decisions unless my conscience is conflicted.  My conscience is really not conflicted with respect to eating meat.  Regardless if inherently eating meat is ethical or not, I know the way I consume is not ethical by my standards.   I am iust lazy and poor.  I don't believe it is right to farm plants or animals the way that we do.  But, I still consume their products.  I am no better than any other human and I don't pretend to be able to contend with my nature.  It would be too exhausting for my particular mind.  I don't have to strength to fight the way of the world, so the Taoist in me accepts the world for what it is.  I have faith that things will progress the way they ought to without having to be at odds with our natural diet.

For those of you unfamiliar with principle of inaction here is a quote explaining it:



> Inaction or wu-wei does not mean that one literally does nothing (although more often than we think actually doing nothing is the best policy). Rather, it means that one avoids unnatural action. This is most often forced or aggressive or obsessively fussy action. It also means, that one performs all one's actions with a natural, unforced attitude. The Taoist remembers that sand will settle out of water in time if the water is left undisturbed, and that no one person can do everything. Above all the Taoist avoids fussing. Excessive excitement over trivial matters is an annoyance to both self and others. The Czech philosopher Comenius expressed the idea in his motto: "Omnia sponte fluant; absit violentiarebus" – "Let all things spontaneously flow; let there be no violence to things". Wu-wei is also related to tolerance: one does not insistently interfere in the lives of others unless they themselves are interfering with someone. This letting alone of others is a form of respect and non-violence, and is akin to the modern notion of human rights.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> whats funny, its people for the killing of animal keep repeating the same argument over and over:
> 1- the cycle of life is based upon killing
> 2- killing is everywhere in nature
> 3- nothing wrong with killing, we have to eat
> 
> im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome



please go read some more about  Buddhism if you want to be a monk.  You seem to have alot of attachment.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Not at all. The hatred comes from humanity. The earth is full of love. The plant kingdom is full of a love and peace that is perceptible. The animals act on instinct and don't have free will like we do. They're innocent. And if humanity changed the way we relate to each other and the rest of the earth the animals would also change. We are the ones who set the tone or create the consciousness for this world.
> 
> You can laugh off this all you want but it's true. To begin with this world was a paradise and it was first when humans started to turn against one another that the animals changed. There was no murder in the Garden of Eden. If it had been it wouldn't have been a paradise. Stop trying to make up excuses to defend evil. It's depressing and degrading to your spirit.



what exactly is our will free from?


----------



## -=SS=-

murphythecat said:


> im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome



Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here 

It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't. 

If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.

The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up. 

I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all. 

Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.


----------



## turkalurk

Journyman16 said:


> You might want to think through your choice of words a little more. We haven't _DESTROYED_ anything, we have changed things. The sea still lives and has billions of life forms in it. The ecosystems that farms have re[placed are still around and, although arguably in danger in some places, are certainly not 'destroyed.'
> 
> And the point about Monsanto can be echoed about vegetable farms and grains - monoculture farms, which is what we would need to feed everyone on non-animal foods, are horrendously bad for environments. Just as Monsanto risks our entire future by killing off diversity, and poisoning the pollinators as well as us, monoculture farming causes large swathes of land become inhospitable to 'natural life forms. Those animals and insects then adapt to eat the foods we are growing where they once lived and then we kill them off with pesticides.
> 
> Eating meat isn't 'wrong' just because greed makes people treat animals badly, GREED is wrong. We will not resolve any problems while we try to demonise things that aren't a problem, and in spite of rhetoric, eating animals IS natural. Lots of animals do it. It's not eating them that is wrong, it's setting up and glorifying systems that demand everybody get all they can for themselves and bugger the rest. It's programming people to BUY! BUY! BUY! at all costs (I like puns :D) so the ultra-rich can get even richer and THAT focus on riches and power is why we have producers with zero empathy for the produce, and that includes the vegetables.
> 
> We've allowed the God of Money to overwrite even normal commonsense and now we risk our world so the Rothschilds and others can add another zero or two to their wealth.



great post!


----------



## murphythecat

-=SS=- said:


> Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here
> 
> It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't.
> 
> If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.
> 
> The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up.
> 
> I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all.
> 
> Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.


Ive only stated my opinion. I havent decided anything, but faced with staggering evidence, some of you fail to see how bad meat farms is for the animals and for the planet.

it is the most polluting industry on the planet, it consume 20% of the water supply, the food that needs to be used to feed the animals is ridiculously too much. its not a viable option to feed people with meat. theres been hundreds of scientific articles written about it. It is the most harming industry for the nature. 

yet people still consume meat and act as if they dont have any responsability toward the issue. when you buy meat, you encourage that industry, you encourage the worst condition a being could live, you encourage the torture, violence. 

lol, I need to ask nature? I ask MY nature, I ask myself, would you want to be killed for your meat? 

_theres nothing wrong with killing a animal for his meat when you could eat something else that doesnt imply killing another being? _I disagree. It is so wrong that if you dont see it, too bad. 

people eat meat because it taste good. nobody would eat it if it tasted like shit. its not to respect the way of nature, to respect the way nature want us to feed ourselves, to respect the eco system to make sure the economy doesnt collapse, we eat it because we like the taste of meat, no matter the consequence our preference has on other people lives.
thats how our society is


----------



## Xorkoth

-=SS=- said:


> Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here
> 
> It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't.
> 
> If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.
> 
> The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up.
> 
> I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all.
> 
> Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.



Awesome post man.


----------



## murphythecat

I see





Xorkoth said:


> Awesome post man.


----------



## turkalurk

See, I figured they'd be working on this already!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms

Maybe if I post a relevant article, someone will acknowledge ita significance!


----------



## Xorkoth

murphythecat said:


> I see



It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on.  I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads.  I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes.  When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.

But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.


----------



## murphythecat

sadly, im sure you wouldnt say that if you shared the same opinion on the matter. 

all I see is people, without valid and strong argument, always rely on personal attacks, generalization or plain mistaken view which has no logic.

and now, you agree with
_I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all. _

wouldn't you have preferred that the bear wouldnt have killed you so you can continue to enjoy your life. we are way worst then the bear. the bear has to kill you to live, but we dont. we just kill it because we don't like nuts and veggies, we prefer steak. we have the choice to choose what we find the most beneficial for everyone. that choice makes us so lucky yet in so much critical point in our life. I guess I find it all very sad, and the way Im able to express it, badly, is not the most politically correct way to do it. 



Xorkoth said:


> It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on.  I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads.  I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes.  When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.
> 
> But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.


----------



## Ninae

Don't attack me for making a part of yourself you're not comfortable with alive for you. If you were truly comfortable with yourself you wouldn't care what anyone said or feel the need to keep defending yourself. I don't get angry if someone questions me about not being a vegan, because I know that it's wrong and I'm just not ready for it yet, but I have peace with myself because I've already done a lot to reduce the suffering of the animal kingdom so it doesn't disturb me.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Don't attack me for making a part of yourself you're not comfortable with alive for you. If you were truly comfortable with yourself you wouldn't care what anyone said or feel the need to keep defending yourself. I don't get angry if someone questions me about not being a vegan, because I know that it's wrong and I'm just not ready for it yet, but I have peace with myself because I've already done a lot to reduce the suffering of the animal kingdom so it doesn't disturb me.



who is attacking you?  Now I can see where willow is coming from.  Without quoting the post you are responding to its hard to figure out the context in which to interpret what you mean and to whom you are directing them at.  I am comfortable with my efforts because I know there is always room for progress.  If I were only comfortable being the person I desired to be, then I would never be comfortable because there is always room to grow.   That's what I mean when I say I an comfortable with my self and place in the World.  Not, because I am so great, but because from my place in the World I can see vast greatness and I am grateful to take part in the system.  I believe we are progressing as things ought to regardless of how favorable the outcomes are to me specifically.  It took me awhile to get to where I am, and I still struggle with who I am at times, but I don't hate myself for my failures, I love myself for being able to acknowledge them and strive to learn from my mistakes.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> I believe I did respond to your post the first time you posted it.



Ah.  I just believe that it didn't really adequately address the series of questions I put forth specifically.  I don't mean to badger you.  I'm just interested in your answers.



> I am sorry if I made the impression that my food preferences are based on ethical principles, but as I have said they simply aren't that thought out. I get hungry and I eat. I liked Kant's universalization, but in a serious ethical debate where I applily my personal code of ethics, I don't believe I could say I personally feel that it is right for me to take a life to eat it, if I can find a healthy alternative.



This is an honest answer I can respect, and I think that most people probably approach food choices in this way.  Consequently, I think the main useful step for vegetarian 'propagandists' is just to introduce the idea of applying ethics to one's diet just by example and answering questions.  'Converts' do best doing the cognitive and affective work themselves.

Also, sorry if I missed your noted statement of approach.



> Kant's universalization loses its appeal when you apply the murderer situation where Kant suggests one still ought not tell a lie. I would rather sacrifice my integrity and become a liar than to tell a murderer where to find his prey.



One problem with the Kantian categorical imperative, I think, is that it's often unclear what the scope of the maxim one attempts to universalize should be.  So I was approaching the whole issue from an entirely different angle.  Namely, I think that willing that compassion be in general extended to perceiving beings does not present any inherent contradictions in its possible implementations that undermine its reason for being.  Put more specifically, extending such compassion does not undermine the overall goal of reducing suffering.  Now, I think that willing that all perceiving beings should be given ethical regard similar to what we extend humans leads to incoherence that undermines extension of such regard (namely, treating animals as ethical agents undermines our ability to promote their welfare).



> Its easy for me to claim meat eating can be universalized because we already eat meat and have been for tens of thousands of years.



This is misuse of Kant's universalization.  Namely, you are taking a claim with ambiguous ethical implications and attempting to universalize it.  We'd need to know motivating ethic underlying this maxim, "All humans should eat meat," so we can predict whether this behavioral maxim will undermine this ethic when put into practice.  Empirical evidence of the sort you note, eg, that we've been putting this into practice for tens of thousands of years, doesn't speak at all to whether the behavioral maxim to eat meat can be validly universalized; the question is instead of ethical principles and consequents that follow from initial concepts by logical necessity.



> To decide ethics we must be able to predict the consequences to decide which diet would truly bring the most good with the least amount of harm.



Ah.  So would you say that you come from a mostly utilitarian perspective?



> I have said not to expect me to take your word for the statistics that support veganism as the ethical diet for the human population. I feel since vegans want change, they should provide some verifiable evidence that supports their contingency plan of just switching from meatt o vegetables.



I don't know why you assume that this transition would be difficult, as vegetarian eating depends on mostly the same agricultural infrastructure that we already have in place.  It's not intractably difficult to plant different crops on land...and actually, I think maybe we should practice animal husbandry in pasture land that can't be used for anything else.  Half of Indians are vegetarian, indicating that the practice is viable on a very large scale.




> To be honest, I mostly listen to my conscience when making ethical decisions unless my conscience is conflicted. My conscience is really not conflicted with respect to eating meat. Regardless if inherently eating meat is ethical or not, I know the way I consume is not ethical by my standards. I am iust lazy and poor. I don't believe it is right to farm plants or animals the way that we do. But, I still consume their products. I am no better than any other human and I don't pretend to be able to contend with my nature. It would be too exhausting for my particular mind.



I again appreciate your honesty.  This bears some similarity to my particular explanation for why I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian rather than vegan.



> I don't have to strength to fight the way of the world, so the Taoist in me accepts the world for what it is. I have faith that things will progress the way they ought to without having to be at odds with our natural diet.



At the same time, couldn't treating animals with compassion be part of walking the Way, in that in doing so, one avoids causing the sorts of discord and tension that wreaking suffering on others causes?  So in this way, spontaneous regard with compassion is a route toward conformity to 'nature'.
(as a general remark, I find it interesting in such cases where the same ethical system can allow generation of conflicting ethical conclusions.)

ebola


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> who is attacking you?  Now I can see where willow is coming from.  Without quoting the post you are responding to its hard to figure out the context in which to interpret what you mean and to whom you are directing them at.



In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.

And how was I to know you would go back and change your post? Before that it was obvious who it was directed to. No reflection on me at all, I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.

What is more, you know well it was directed at you, so why even bring it up? Just to cause trouble.


----------



## ebola?

Ninae said:
			
		

> In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.



Volleying out vague suspicions about being under attack is misleading: it leads people to believe that you are being personally attacked by a specific individual.  But more importantly, it is disruptive, distracting from the substantive issues at hand, serving no real purpose; please don't do it.  PandS doesn't stand for "Please Stir up drama". 

ebola


----------



## -=SS=-

Xorkoth said:


> It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on.  I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads.  *I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes.*  When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.
> 
> But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.



I'd just like to second that part. I do believe everyone in the anti-killing and vegetarian/vegan crowd has their hearts in the right place, I do get your position and I know others on the pro side do too. We can all agree industrial farming cuts a lot of corners and is a perversion of the kind of farming our ancestors engaged in, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just the bleeding heart attitude in combination with a condescending attitude towards those who take sustenance from killing that is faulty here. It's the assumptions and projections upon animals and the processes of life with nothing to substantiate the position but emotion. Which is fine in your own sphere.. if you feel it to be true, that's great and again I salute you for your convictions.. but at the end of the day it's a subjective interpretation. It could turn out to be true, that God wants us to be vegetarian's. I don't know. But neither does anyone else. 

Again Murphy you talk about 'wouldn't I prefer to live' rather than be eaten? Of course I would.. and by "I" I mean my natural programming that does not want this body to die, not the real "I". The real "I" does not care whether the body lives or dies. No living organism wants to die.. that is natural programming inherent in the organism. But do you know that the mouse about to be eaten by the cat doesn't accept its fate, that it isn't already aware of why it exists in the first place.. as food for the cat? You say we have a choice, that we know what is best/right based upon our emotional conviction... but again how do you _know_ nature doesn't want you to kill and eat the animal? Perhaps nature requires death. Plenty of ancient peoples offered sacrifices for that reason and hoped they could win the gods blessings.. perhaps they were right, if a bit misguided in that they thought they could sway the gods/nature. Who knows.

All I know is that animals eat other animals, and none of them have a moral conniption fit about it. I'm merely observing the patterns I see before me and going from there.


----------



## turkalurk

*Ebola*

you make some valid points, but please keep in mind that my argument is whether it is inherently wrong to eat meat.  If it is wrong, then we should be able to universalize a law outlawing the killing of all animals.  Do you see the problem with this?  Inhumane practices are irrelevant because I have admitted that we ought to change and provided a means and a possible time-line included in the contingency plan I offered.


----------



## Ninae

Of course it can't be carried out like that. That is completely unrealistic and I've never said anything of the kind so why even argue for it like that? Like I keep saying, the only way it can be done is through a gradual adjustment where more and more make the choice to give up meat on a personal level. It would take decades so a gradual transformation of the industries and economy can be done. Not only that, I am convinced it WILL be done, and it won't take too long either.

The main thing is the obstacles that people have in mind are mostly imaginary. It's really not that much of a sacrifice, neither from a nutrition point of view or the enjoyment that can be had from your food. It's true that the majority of meat-eaters eat shitty food, both unhealthy and tasteless, and like me and Xorkoth discussed further up there are perfectly good alternatives you can learn to make for yourself. Homemade food always tastes best and if you had a girlfriend who could make you high-quality home-cooked vegetarian meals I very much doubt you would miss your old meals. I can make the best pizza in the world so what is there to miss? Learn how to cook for yourself and you'll be healthier and happier.

It does ask you to give up some on the level of convenience, both when it comes to making sure you get the nutrition you need and taking the time to prepare your own food. It's really worth it, though, both for the welfare of aninmals and for the sake of your own health and quality of cuisine. Or would you really miss hotdogs, burgers, chips and the kinds of cheap low-level foods most people eat most of the time (meat or not) and believe they can't do without?


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.
> 
> And how was I to know you would go back and change your post? Before that it was obvious who it was directed to. No reflection on me at all, I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.
> 
> What is more, you know well it was directed at you, so why even bring it up? Just to cause trouble.



I was wondering why you thought you were being attacked.  Maybe, you projecting because your words seem contradictory.  First you say you were speaking in general, now you say I assumed correctly to think it was directed at me.  I just want to clarify that I am not angry.  I don't pretend to stand on a stronger moral leg(is that bettet than moral horse?)  I love the legs you stand on.  I find your empathy and compassion admirable and women that promote such ideas are adorable to me.  If you were the slightest bit physically attractive to me, my silly ass would easily become infatuated enough  to give your cause a sincere effort.  If you think I harbor any ill feelings for you because I don't measure up to your level of beauty and empathy then you are severely mistaken.  I admire those people like you, and I value your empathetic position so much, I would gladly lay down my life in order for a person like you to survive against the harsh violence that can emerge from this world.  And, I would consider it a self-serving act, because I would feel so grateful to have the opportunity to make that kind of significant impact on a good person's life, and the opportunity to prove who I am to myself and the world.


----------



## murphythecat

im convinced now.

I shouldnt care about the well being of animals, I clearly cannot see the pig screaming when hes about the get kill. he should only embrace his faith. hey, who am I to know if he really suffers. its too subjective to see. I think the pig screams of happiness actually. 
Violence is in nature all around me, why should I not be violent myself, its totally acceptable. hey, ancient civilisation were much worst then us!
Next time someone complain about being raped, lets just say to them, its natural, your real I doesnt suffer, we shouldnt punish your aggressor, you should have embraced your faith.




-=SS=- said:


> I'd just like to second that part. I do believe everyone in the anti-killing and vegetarian/vegan crowd has their hearts in the right place, I do get your position and I know others on the pro side do too. We can all agree industrial farming cuts a lot of corners and is a perversion of the kind of farming our ancestors engaged in, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just the bleeding heart attitude in combination with a condescending attitude towards those who take sustenance from killing that is faulty here. It's the assumptions and projections upon animals and the processes of life with nothing to substantiate the position but emotion. Which is fine in your own sphere.. if you feel it to be true, that's great and again I salute you for your convictions.. but at the end of the day it's a subjective interpretation. It could turn out to be true, that God wants us to be vegetarian's. I don't know. But neither does anyone else.
> 
> Again Murphy you talk about 'wouldn't I prefer to live' rather than be eaten? Of course I would.. and by "I" I mean my natural programming that does not want this body to die, not the real "I". The real "I" does not care whether the body lives or dies. No living organism wants to die.. that is natural programming inherent in the organism. But do you know that the mouse about to be eaten by the cat doesn't accept its fate, that it isn't already aware of why it exists in the first place.. as food for the cat? You say we have a choice, that we know what is best/right based upon our emotional conviction... but again how do you _know_ nature doesn't want you to kill and eat the animal? Perhaps nature requires death. Plenty of ancient peoples offered sacrifices for that reason and hoped they could win the gods blessings.. perhaps they were right, if a bit misguided in that they thought they could sway the gods/nature. Who knows.
> 
> All I know is that animals eat other animals, and none of them have a moral conniption fit about it. I'm merely observing the patterns I see before me and going from there.


As I told you, take a knife and go kill a animal. look at how you feel when you do it, look into the animal eye when you do it. look how you feel. better yet, take some shrooms, and think about killing another being.
morality and ethic can only be based on compassion. the way we act, if we really want to better ourselves in this life, must be based on noble feeling. otherwise, your doomed.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> I was wondering why you thought you were being attacked.  Maybe, you projecting because your words seem contradictory.  First you say you were speaking in general, now you say I assumed correctly to think it was directed at me.  I just want to clarify that I am not angry.  I don't pretend to stand on a stronger moral leg(is that bettet than moral horse?)  I love the legs you stand on.  I find your empathy and compassion admirable and women that promote such ideas are adorable to me.  If you were the slightest bit physically attractive to me, my silly ass would easily become infatuated enough  to give your cause a sincere effort.  If you think I harbor any ill feelings for you because I don't measure up to your level of beauty and empathy then you are severely mistaken.  I admire those people like you, and I value your empathetic position so much, I would gladly lay down my life in order for a person like you to survive against the harsh violence that can emerge from this world.  And, I would consider it a self-serving act, because I would feel so grateful to have the opportunity to make that kind of significant impact on a good person's life, and the opportunity to prove who I am to myself and the world.



Well, I have to thank you for this, probably the highest level of appreciation I've received on this board.


----------



## -=SS=-

Ninae said:


> It does ask you to give up some on the level of convenience, both when it comes to making sure you get the nutrition you need and taking the time to prepare your own food. It's really worth it, though, both for the welfare of aninmals and the sake of your own health and quality of cousine. Or would you really miss hotdogs, burgers, chips and the kinds of cheap low-level foods most people eat most of the time (meat or not) and believe they can't do without?



Ninae, you keep making this assumption that meat eaters are all eating shitty quality meat products from fast food joints and it is irritating to say the least. I know plenty of meat eaters, myself included, who like the best quality products (even if we can't always afford them). The taste of proper meat is superior, same with eggs mentioned earlier. In order for the taste to be superior the animals _must_ have led a healthy life and had access to good nutrition themselves. There is no other way around it. Same goes for welfare.. a stressed animals flesh tastes worse than one that was contented. Farmers know this, hence why the best quality meat comes from farmers who care for their animals.

If the animal has a good life and is killed instantly then its welfare does not come into question. You can debate whether it was free or not.. but considering 99% of humans live imprisoned in a completely artificial way of living and love their condition, do you really think an animal with half our brain capacity is going to debate its freedom? Those cows in the pasture look pretty damn content to me.


----------



## murphythecat

but, its not just the animal who suffers from being killed.
I'm also very concerned about the person who kill. actually, the one being killed will suffer much less then the person who accept himself to kill or to promote violence for his own benefits.


-=SS=- said:


> Ninae, you keep making this assumption that meat eaters are all eating shitty quality meat products from fast food joints and it is irritating to say the least. I know plenty of meat eaters, myself included, who like the best quality products (even if we can't always afford them). The taste of proper meat is superior, same with eggs mentioned earlier. In order for the taste to be superior the animals _must_ have led a healthy life and had access to good nutrition themselves. There is no other way around it. Same goes for welfare.. a stressed animals flesh tastes worse than one that was contented. Farmers know this, hence why the best quality meat comes from farmers who care for their animals.
> 
> If the animal has a good life and is killed instantly then its welfare does not come into question. You can debate whether it was free or not.. but considering 99% of humans live imprisoned in a completely artificial way of living and love their condition, do you really think an animal with half our brain capacity is going to debate its freedom? Those cows in the pasture look pretty damn content to me.


----------



## -=SS=-

murphythecat said:


> but, its not just the animal who suffers from being killed.
> I'm also very concerned about the person who kill. actually, the one being killed will suffer much less then the person who accept himself to kill or to promote violence for his own benefits.



Why? Why be concerned? Again you're projecting your beliefs on to the situation and seeing things that may not be there. Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? Just because we've built up this cultural dread of death doesn't mean its a big deal in reality. The same can be applied to the act of sex. It's been built up to be this huge thing *heh* but it's just nature working its magic through us.. we have little control over the whole situation despite our own protests of free will. 

As stated before, does the cat eating the mouse suffer under your logic? Should it feel guilty for daring to kill the mouse in order to survive? Is it going to hell for killing? I mean come on man.. you must see this argument can be reduced down to show quite clearly the ridiculous notion that killing is wrong. Animals do it all the time. Why would nature, god or whoever put this mechanism into the system if it were wrong and required all the damn time!

So long as we make the distinction between killing and murder. Killing animals for sustenance is not murder, you do it to survive. Killing your grandma ahead of natural schedule in order to get her estate, or because you just wanted to, is deplorable. Though in the end I would actually argue neither is inherently wrong, philosophically speaking.


----------



## murphythecat

are you a cat? does a cat have a choice? a cat is carnivore, we are both carnivore and herbivore. the cat has no choice, but you do. he cannot decide what hes going to eat, he cannot decide to turn vegetarian and go to the super market.
_
Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? _
because it creates suffering, it promotes violence. are you gonna compare giving a hug to killing a animal for his flesh? both are bodily function: one motivated by love and care, the other by lack of compassion and violence.

why kill when you can eat something that hasnt suffered, like nuts, seeds, fruits. you have a choice, that makes all the difference in the world. is that really hard to see?

oh, now you have no control over sex? sex is more strong then your will?

again, take a knife, and look how you feel and how you make feel the other being when you kill it. well, please dont do it, but realize how much it hurts you. I personally would do anything in my power to protect life. Im not afraid of suffering, not afraid of death, but im damn afraid to kill another being, because I believe that killing another being is like killing love inside oneself, killing compassion, killing the will to do good. 



-=SS=- said:


> Why? Why be concerned? Again you're projecting your beliefs on to the situation and seeing things that may not be there. Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? Just because we've built up this cultural dread of death doesn't mean its a big deal in reality. The same can be applied to the act of sex. It's been built up to be this huge thing *heh* but it's just nature working its magic through us.. we have little control over the whole situation despite our own protests of free will.
> 
> As stated before, does the cat eating the mouse suffer under your logic? Should it feel guilty for daring to kill the mouse in order to survive? Is it going to hell for killing? I mean come on man.. you must see this argument can be reduced down to show quite clearly the ridiculous notion that killing is wrong. Animals do it all the time. Why would nature, god or whoever put this mechanism into the system if it were wrong and required all the damn time!
> 
> So long as we make the distinction between killing and murder. Killing animals for sustenance is not murder, you do it to survive. Killing your grandma ahead of natural schedule in order to get her estate, or because you just wanted to, is deplorable. Though in the end I would actually argue neither is inherently wrong, philosophically speaking.


----------



## -=SS=-

murphythecat said:


> are you a cat? does a cat have a choice? a cat is carnivore, we are both carnivore and herbivore. the cat has no choice, but you do.
> _
> Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? _
> because it creates suffering, it promotes violence. are you gonna compare giving a hug to killing a animal for his flesh? both are bodily function: one motivated by love and care, the other by lack of compassion and violence.
> 
> why kill when you can eat something that hasnt suffered, like nuts, seeds, fruits. you have a choice, that makes all the difference in the world. is that really hard to see?
> 
> oh, now you have no control over sex? sex is more strong then your will?



Ok, so I have a choice. I choose to eat meat. _Why_ is that choice wrong when I am designed quite perfectly to eat and process meat? If the animal has not suffered during its life and died instantly then where is the moral quandary to be had? I do not see how that creates suffering nor do I subscribe to the idea it necessarily promotes violence. Killing does not have to involve lack of compassion and violence by default.. that's your subjective interpretation. 

Why kill when I can eat a pure veg diet? The question really for me is, _why_ should I forcefully limit my dietary options when I am designed to eat meat and I don't believe it's a crime to kill another organism? I agree about the factory farming part and so forth, as mentioned numerous times. But the killing.. I fail to see an issue here.


----------



## Ninae

-=SS=- said:


> Ninae, you keep making this assumption that meat eaters are all eating shitty quality meat products from fast food joints and it is irritating to say the least.



No, I was just talking about the average person who mostly eats shitty unhealthy food, meat or no meat. Of course there are exceptions and I can't possible know how someone in particular eats. But it's a miscomprehension to feel you will necessarily be deprived if you exchange your diet for high-quality vegetarian food.

There are also some very good meat-substitutes which are better than most meat you can get as most can't afford to eat steak or chicken all the time. Walnut-roast, used as a whole or as a mincemeat substitite is one (it's tastier than a lot of meat and just as good as mincemeat). Grilled cheese is another one, which can be as good as ham, or bacon. And broccoli heads boiled in cream and salted and peppered is a gourmet delicatesse which can be compared to beef and is also more flavourful than most meat when done well. It's a simple dish, try it with some spring onion.

But I guess it's easier if you enjoy creative cooking, which I always have done.


----------



## murphythecat

I hope you are absolutely sure that its the right choice because the choices we make in life defines our reality.





-=SS=- said:


> Ok, so I have a choice. I choose to eat meat. _Why_ is that choice wrong when I am designed quite perfectly to eat and process meat? If the animal has not suffered during its life and died instantly then where is the moral quandary to be had? I do not see how that creates suffering nor do I subscribe to the idea it necessarily promotes violence. Killing does not have to involve lack of compassion and violence by default.. that's your subjective interpretation.
> 
> Why kill when I can eat a pure veg diet? The question really for me is, _why_ should I forcefully limit my dietary options when I am designed to eat meat and I don't believe it's a crime to kill another organism? I agree about the factory farming part and so forth, as mentioned numerous times. But the killing.. I fail to see an issue here.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Well, I have to thank you for this, probably the highest level of appreciation I've received on this board.



 I am glad you appreciate my sentiments, you beautiful thang you!


----------



## What 23

murphythecat said:


> take some shrooms



I have probably consumed more psychs than you. If it were my family having a meal to keep their strength up, and nothing else was in range, or not, I would even slaughter you.

And right now I kind of want to kill an animal right in front of you.

Don't get me wrong. I have felt. I cried for a day the first time I killed a bird, having shot it without any planning as to what I would do if it actually died. I built it a shelter of bricks like a tomb hoping it just needed to rest and it would be healed. It was stiff when I checked later. Cry cry cry cry. It didn't stop for that entire day. I went to sleep crying.

Many years later, I had a dream about flying over a pyramid, and woke up and in MS paint I illustrated it. I wrote of it and included the picture in my blog. Then, a girl I didn't know, with this bird's name, Robyn (the bird was a robin) contacted me, telling me I am Quetzalcoatl, or Pahana more specifically. She was a Hopi, and they were waiting for the man who that was supposed to be. 

She is why I went vegetarian for 7 years. He was allegedly a vegetarian and a lot of it- the story and resonances fit... Such as removing my 'mask' in the 'plaza' after dancing in front of 'uninitiated' children.

I don't know what to tell you. Your example of slaughtering the cow, appealing to my empathy, won't work. You may get me to feel, but I am a killer, and I have come to terms with it. I try not to kill, where ever possible. But as I have told you countless times though I'm sure you doubt, I am allergic to most food (and as I say this I am watching the show, House, and someone asks "how can she be allergic to everything?!"). And I can eat chicken. So fuck off.

Along with plenty of other reasons.
I really don't mean to hinge my view on my condition. Veganism is not natural for humans. Or well, there is that tricky word again- natural. In the wild, I would eat meat. It would come naturally.


----------



## swilow

^You're such a hostile guy, telling people to fuck off and to kill themselves. I don't get it. You act like you are enlightened and can see the truth and yet you very rarely post or contribute anything that has any substance or connection to the thread you are posting in. I find it strange TBH. 

WTF is turkalurk hitting on Ninae for? :D 




-=SS=- said:


> Killing animals for sustenance is not murder, you do it to survive.



Just to clarify, do you hunt and kill your own food? 



> you must see this argument can be reduced down to show quite clearly the ridiculous notion that killing is wrong. Animals do it all the time.



See, I don't agree with Murphy that killing is inherently wrong. I dislike absolutes really. But you need to find a better reason then "animals do it all the time". Humans are animals yes, but animals are not humans. It is illogical to make claims about the natural world and our role in it when we are barely talking about the natural world at all here. We are talking, by and large, about mass-farming, a completely unnatural and environmentally destructive practise, which is what I am deeply opposed to. 

SS, your are presenting some absurd arguments, such as the one where you claim that animals exist specifcally to be eaten by another animal. That's not true, that is simply an inherent by-product of being alive. The mouse did not evolve to be eaten by the cat; the cat has evolved to be well suited to eating mice. This demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of evolution on earth.


----------



## Ninae

I don't know about these sayings that "I am happy to accept my place as a top predator or my place at the top of the food chain".

I don't know if it was a place given to us, exactly. More like we snatched it with force and cunning. If we were to go by the laws of nature you'd have to say tigers and lions are the superior predators to us under normal circumstances without the support of the civilisation we've made. So would it be right to say we just have to accept our fate and that it's their (God-given or otherwise) right to rend us to pieces? 

This is where these type of arguments don't hold up, they can never be logically followed all the way through. That, and how the goal-posts are changed all the time when you hit a dead-end. At least go with one version of reality if you want to be taken seriously. Know what your stand is at least and don't just grasp for any straw as you run out of ideas.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:
			
		

> I don't know if it was a place given to us, exactly. More like we snatched it with force and cunning.



I think that is how the natural world operates. Supplant the word force with 'strength' and cunning with 'intelligence', and that is essentially how animals come to live within nature, including humans. I think we absolutely did take our place through violence and force, but that is almost irrelevant. Now that we are here, we don't really need to do that any longer. I don't think the sheep are going to rise up against us any time soon. 



> "I am happy to accept my place as a top predator or my place at the top of the food chain".



I find this reasoning odd too. You here of people describing humans as the apex predator whilst they head down to the shops to buy their bread and sausages. I think most humans today would die within days if they were forced to actually fend for themselves. An apex predator is thought to be essential to an eco-system in regulating distribtuion of resources within it (look at the reintroduction of the grey wolf to Yellowstone where decrease in grazing animals has lead to an increase in certain plants and trees), but its hard to see that from human behaviour. I think that we are no more an apex predator then a shark is an accomplished poet.

People might use this idea of apex predator to defend their behaviour as 'natural', forgetting that it is unnatural to house and treat animals the way we have been. I can't really handle the hypocrisy of claiming 'natural law' as a defense of practises never before seen on earth ever. It is perfectly natural to eat meat, completely unnatural to source it in the way that we have been... And the world will pay for this sadly.


----------



## Ninae

And we're only the "top predators" over weaker mammals, not other predators. And we're a mix of both. We're not even that predatory, many of us are unsuited or unwilling to live like that, and rational thought and co-operation are only some forms of strength.

Sharks, crocodiles, snakes, tigers, lions, bears, woolfs, scorpions - not so strong now are we?

I would happily admit a tiger has the right of "survival of the fittest" over me. It's his natural place in the eco-system. But I'm not sure I would be so happy about me (or my children) ending up as his prey and there's no reason to think animals, especially other mammals, feel any different.



willow11 said:


> I think that we are no more an apex predator then a shark is an accomplished poet.



LOL. We're wussies. 

I actually have a bit of a killer instinct. But it was a long time to come as I was born and raised to be so altruistic. But by now I've been pushed past my limit so it has aroused my survival-instinct and I'm quite happy to let people know I'm prepared to turn my energies against them.


----------



## swilow

^I guarantee you that most humans would beat sharks at a game of chess. The intellect is our only strength and it has a value greater then any other type of physical strength.


----------



## What 23

I think our hands and bipedalism put us pretty high up there. I would argue that it is THE physical 'strength' that means the most here. That amounts to the most.

It is this form that allows our intelligence, as it is.


----------



## -=SS=-

willow11 said:


> Just to clarify, do you hunt and kill your own food?
> 
> See, I don't agree with Murphy that killing is inherently wrong. I dislike absolutes really. But you need to find a better reason then "animals do it all the time". Humans are animals yes, but animals are not humans. It is illogical to make claims about the natural world and our role in it when we are barely talking about the natural world at all here. We are talking, by and large, about mass-farming, a completely unnatural and environmentally destructive practise, which is what I am deeply opposed to.
> 
> SS, your are presenting some absurd arguments, such as the one where you claim that animals exist specifcally to be eaten by another animal. That's not true, that is simply an inherent by-product of being alive. The mouse did not evolve to be eaten by the cat; the cat has evolved to be well suited to eating mice. This demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of evolution on earth.



No I don't. I'm a student living in an urban environment. I've often thought about purchasing an air rifle and hunting wood pigeons though.. there is an abundance of them, total pest to crops and other birds. I've watched a friend skin, gut and prepare them though.. was a trained Italian chef. Very tasty meal he made.

I think the reason "animals do it all the time" is entirely sufficient. We are animals, 'human' is a label of self-importance nothing more. We have language and atom smashers but, we're still just animals. We have been discussing killing animals for food, not just industrial farming. As I have stated numerous times industrial farming sucks but good old fashioned farming where animals are taken care of and slaughtered cleanly is completely fine.. however there are people here arguing that all killing is wrong, but I have been arguing is nonsense.

Your point countering my cat-mouse argument is merely one angle of seeing how things are and I don't subscribe to it being the only interpretation of evolution, but the evolution story is way off course for this thread so I'll leave my point there.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I applied for a job cleaning up after-hours in a slaughter house, in part due to this thread.
If I get the job, I figure that it will be eye-opening and prevent me from relapsing.


----------



## Journyman16

Ninae said:


> Not at all. The hatred comes from humanity. The earth is full of love. The plant kingdom is full of a love and peace that is perceptible. The animals act on instinct and don't have free will like we do. They're innocent. And if humanity changed the way we relate to each other and the rest of the earth the animals would also change. We are the ones who set the tone or create the consciousness for this world.
> 
> You can laugh off this all you want but it's true. To begin with this world was a paradise and it was first when humans started to turn against one another that the animals changed. There was no murder in the Garden of Eden. If it had been it wouldn't have been a paradise. Stop trying to make up excuses to defend evil. It's depressing and degrading to your spirit.


Well it is debatable (in a literal sense) as to whether we actually have free will. Physics tends towards the 'No' response. 

I'm unsure why you think that hominids didn't murder. Chimps do and they are closer to hominids than we are. There seem to be a number of fossils clearly predating modern humans that show evidence of violence, even among themselves. Lots of animal fossils show evidence of cuts and wounds that are clearly from weapons.

Also you probably shouldn't use myth to argue a point. There is no evidence there was ever a Garden of Eden. And if you are going to use such backing for your PoV then it ain't our fault anyway - God made us like this. He also gave us all the animals, fish and birds. Chapter 1 of Genesis that's all he gives, chapter 2 is when the plant stuff comes along.



> Chap 1:26
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.





> Chap 2:16
> And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:


Now you may interpret that however you like but in plain language it seems clear that first Man was given all the critters and only after God made Adam did anything about the Garden come along. 

It also seems clear that perhaps we shouldn't be eating vegetables and grain, if we wish to live according to the myth - they don't grow on trees. :D

As for the world being a paradise, you might want to talk to the prey of Tyrannosaurus - pretty sure they'd disagree about any paradisiacal claims. :D


----------



## What 23

Nicotine is an insecticide.

And THC

"THC and the other cannabinoids have quite a few protective qualities. They have antibiotic and anti-fungal properties as well. The physical quality of the resin and its placement in glands protruding from the leaf and flower tissue acts as flypaper, capturing some small pests in its stickiness. The cannabinoids have a profound affect on birds and mammals that might eat the substances, producing an intoxication that they may not find pleasant."

Thank God for demons. Cure my sons demons!

This is just to say, it is not peaceful. It is war. Peace is certain death. Like nirvana? We need both.


----------



## swilow

-=SS=- said:


> No I don't. I'm a student living in an urban environment. I've often thought about purchasing an air rifle and hunting wood pigeons though.. there is an abundance of them, total pest to crops and other birds. I've watched a friend skin, gut and prepare them though.. was a trained Italian chef. Very tasty meal he made.



But, so far, you have made it without having to kill for food, so this has nothing to do with survival. 



> I think the reason "animals do it all the time" is entirely sufficient. We are animals, 'human' is a label of self-importance nothing more. We have language and atom smashers but, we're still just animals. We have been discussing killing animals for food, not just industrial farming. As I have stated numerous times industrial farming sucks but good old fashioned farming where animals are taken care of and slaughtered cleanly is completely fine.. however there are people here arguing that all killing is wrong, but I have been arguing is nonsense.



Yeah but you can't claim to be following your animal nature in the modern world. In the way we cultivate and consume, we are completely different to all other animals and I think claiming to be part of the natural world whilst doing something utterly unnatural is pointless. 

As much as we are animals, we are also something entirely different that has never been seen before. We, unlike all other animals, appear to have the ability to step apart from nature and observe it objectively. We can see the consequences of our actions and let that insight inform our decisions. I truly believe we are simply animals with a large brain, but that large brain has set us almost entirely apart from the natural world. I don't see any animal artists, poets, scientists, madmen, trippers, etc. We came from the same place; but we came to somewhere utterly different to everything else. Our behaviour is different to the rest of the animal kingdom. We put ourselves outside it, and I think that this loss is perhaps the greatest loss of all..



What 23 said:


> The universe needs hostility, war, sickness... Flame, imbalance, death.



The universe doesn't really need anything, or at least, the one I reside in doesn't. Again, these are human values that are completely irrelevant to the the overwhelmingly vast 'rest-of-the-universe'. 

Earth needs balance. It is fragile and impermanent and likely to kick us off it shortly to try and re-establish balance. The physical universe requires nothing from us whatsoever. IMO.  That is the danger of hurting our heritage. So yeah, there is rightful resentment towards those who do not wish to preserve our planet from those who do.


----------



## What 23

I just shook my head.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Perhaps you should do that more often, rather than rambling incessantly.

...

Whether or not there was a literal Garden of Eden is irrelevant.
There was a time before murder, when we belonged to the animal kingdom.
Chimps kill. They do not murder. Same goes for sharks.

God made us like this, yes.
He also made us question what we are doing and what we should be doing.
We have been taken way off track, so that we realize we're off track and realign accordingly.



> Well it is debatable (in a literal sense) as to whether we actually have free will. Physics tends towards the 'No' response.



Since quantum field mechanics proves that there are multiple possible outcomes to every situation, it seems that - perhaps - our decisions dictate whether or not we travel in one direction or another... I'm not entirely convinced of this, but I don't think you can say that the entire field of physics indicates that we don't have free will. You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.

I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.


----------



## What 23

Round and round it goes.

willow- as for balance and imbalance, I believe that imbalance is part of balance. It is a word somewhat open to interpretation, I think. Imbalance can be a result of trying to find balance...

Spending time on boats, I dealt with imbalance (or being unbalanced), for me. At first, I didn't quite have my sea legs. My legs may have been sore dealing with instability. But I balanced myself, and I was better for it. I became more balanced, certainly. Stronger. And even the waves are a result of nature trying to find balance. Going toward it.

But if the ocean and life didn't have the moon to unbalance- to perturb, and pull the tide... life as we know it may not exist. 

This is where I get the fire. Etc. Certainly you must have known that is what I was talking about. Balance as we know it does require some imbalance, or for something to unbalance "balance". Life would die in stagnancy. But, certainly, "balance" is something we should strive for.

A page back or so I did say we were out of balance, in a negative context. I know it renders me an ugly person, because I see another misanthrope lately talking about the same, and I shake my head at him... but if I could I really would make the choice to send 99.93% of us away, and give the Earth a chance to rebound. ...I don't really have a faith in humanity turning it around.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I don't really have a faith in humanity turning it around.



That's just an easy way to justify not contributing to the turnaround.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> WTF is turkalurk hitting on Ninae for? :D



To try and put a smile on a compassionate girl's face.  To show how there is no hostility or anger, but the opposite.  To express my genuine feelings so she knows that she doesn't have to feel defensive, because I like her.


----------



## turkalurk

the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with free will.


----------



## What 23

ForEverAfter said:


> That's just an easy way to justify not contributing to the turnaround.



Orly?


----------



## ForEverAfter

As much as I believe anything to be so.

If you're sitting in a communal living room in a share-house, and it has become - through acts of drug induced depravity - more like a swamp than a room, you could just sit around and say, "We're never going to clean this up!"... And you could be right. But, if you're wrong, when it is clean, you will still reap the benefits.


----------



## Journyman16

ForEverAfter said:


> Whether or not there was a literal Garden of Eden is irrelevant.
> There was a time before murder, when we belonged to the animal kingdom.
> Chimps kill. They do not murder. Same goes for sharks.


Not according to those who believe in the Garden as the origin of Man - the Garden is their only relevancy. 

You walk a fine line trying to define murder as somehow different from killing. Chimps mourn their dead but they still kill others. And I said nothing about sharks. And I note you don't address the issue of early hominids' violence? 


ForEverAfter said:


> God made us like this, yes.
> He also made us question what we are doing and what we should be doing.
> We have been taken way off track, so that we realize we're off track and realign accordingly.


You can't have it both ways - if God made us like this then our acts are entirely both natural AND his fault, not ours. Because if God made us and the Garden myth is some kind of truth, God DIDN'T make us to question what we are and should be doing - in fact we got kicked out of the Garden for STEALING that ability.


ForEverAfter said:


> Since quantum field mechanics proves that there are multiple possible outcomes to every situation, it seems that - perhaps - our decisions dictate whether or not we travel in one direction or another... I'm not entirely convinced of this, but I don't think you can say that the entire field of physics indicates that we don't have free will. You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.
> 
> I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.


I guess what you mean is your belief in what the MSM tells you about quantum theory leads you to state so absolutely that there are many possible outcomes? It might be comforting to believe such things rather than think about the limitations of the 'free will' ideas, but quantum theory is ONLY a theory and we are a VERY long way from being able to declare any such certainty.

And I never said the entire field of physics does anything. You seem to read what you want to be able to mount sarcastic attacks instead of reading what is really said. Maybe try to have a conversation some time?


----------



## What 23

ForEverAfter said:


> As much as I believe anything to be so.
> 
> If you're sitting in a communal living room in a share-house, and it has become - through acts of drug induced depravity - more like a swamp than a room, you could just sit around and say, "We're never going to clean this up!"... And you could be right. But, if you're wrong, when it is clean, you will still reap the benefits.



You don't really know anything about how I live, or what I do.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Journeyman,

I'm a little tired of trying to explain the mythological functionality of the Garden of Eden to you.
You appear intent on misinterpreting it... and, I can only speculate as to why this is so.



> I never said the entire field of physics does anything.



Yes you did. You said that physics (as a field presumably) tends towards there being no free will. Here it is:



> Well it is debatable (in a literal sense) as to whether we actually have free will. Physics tends towards the 'No' response.



...



> You seem to read what you want to be able to mount sarcastic attacks instead of reading what is really said. Maybe try to have a conversation some time?



Nothing I said (to you) was remotely sarcastic. Read it again, if you don't believe me.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> You don't really know anything about how I live, or what I do.



I don't think I ever presumed otherwise.
The messy house thing was an analogy.


----------



## What 23

I took this

"That's just an easy way to justify not contributing to the turnaround."

as you saying I am not trying to contribute. You should see how much trash I throw away.


----------



## Smoky

I truly wish to avoid suffering to all beings especially the most innocent, children and animals. And if it can't be avoided, indeed I can do my part which I do daily, helping them and not eating them for God's sake. Ever look into an animals eyes? They are live beings like all of us and deserve compassion and respect. 
Those that hunt for kill, sport - I will never understand and I cannot be friends most often with folks of this horrible mindset… There is something missing there indeed… and it saddens me deeply


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I took this "That's just an easy way to justify not contributing to the turnaround." as you saying I am not trying to contribute.



You're (apparently) content with contributing towards the suffering of animals... and you justify this, in part, by suggesting that the problem is so vast that it cannot be resolved without a massive drop in Earth's human population... I find this attitude, when applied to anything, not just animal cruelty, troublesome...

I mean, it's unlikely that the human race will make it to the end of the universe. But that is the future.
You can't justify the present by predicting the future.

Since we'll be extinct one day, what should we do?
Go crazy? Rape? Murder? Steal?
We're all going to die anyway!
So, fuck it!
etc.


----------



## What 23

Apparently? 
Again here is an example of how little people's receivers pick up on. So selective.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Well, you contribute don't you?


----------



## What 23

No I'm not a vegetarian/vegan. That seems to be the cut off.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Unless you only use/eat animal products that have been privately farmed, then - yes - consuming meat is the "cut off" for whether or not you contribute to the suffering caused by the meat industry...


----------



## What 23

Oh I thought we were talking about the whole shebang. 

Well, I'll say that I suffer if I eat plant food, to varying degrees, as I've repeatedly shared, but I don't suffer if I eat chicken like that.

I've spent thousands of dollars trying to find things that work (including supplements which I hate taking and would rather not take at all...). The first psychic I went to told me he was seeing a vision of me bringing bags of groceries home to get home and nothing was in the bags. It resonated.

The chicken I eat is organic and has a rating of 3. I'd like to find 4-5. I also live in a metro of over a million, so farms are a little ways away. But, I'm curious if I can get closer to 5 rating chicken.

But everything I buy is organic. No sprays. No GMOs. I take a bag of trash out every two weeks or so. I recycle everything else. I avoid plastic wherever possible. I don't use any cosmetic products, chemicals, or anything. I do all of this for me... But it aligns with sustainability, the direction.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I've never heard of a medical condition that requires people to consume animal products in order to avoid feeling sick. What is the condition, if you don't mind me asking?

...

Your waste/recycling efforts sound impressive, by the way.... By sustainability - though - do you mean that recycling helps sustain the human race and being vegetarian only serves to reduce the suffering of non-humans?


----------



## What 23

Hypersensitive immune system. I'm not sure what to call it.

My dad was in Vietnam and had dioxin exposure, and it is linked to hypersensitive conditions/asthma, in children of the veterans. I don't have proof that this is the cause, but I think it is due to exposure to toxins, hormone disruptors, pesticides, herbicides, sugar, antibiotics... There are a number of potential causes/factors, but I don't know.

Growing up right next to farms that are sprayed with all sorts of stuff and a golf course within walking distance wasn't good either. But as I said I can't pin it on any one thing. Culmination.

My brother had breasts and has obesity problems. I'm pretty sure dioxin has played a role, but I'm not entirely sure. Could be chance, but considering my own issues it would seem we are both out of regulation. My sister didn't have any issues. Females are often in ways stronger however- I seem to remember reading.

I forgive a lot and am sometimes not the guy who tells you to kill yourself, and who imagines the earth being scorched in a wave of hell-fire that somehow only takes most humans (and only often my first girlfriend- a nurse, and my sister and her children save the rest because they are lights in my life), but then some fucker lights a scented candle where I can't easily escape, like my apartment block and it enters the common hall or my apartment, or sprays air freshener and it makes me want to smash things and murder. My face and mouth go on fire. I feel assaulted. I just fucking hate people sometimes. In these moments, to me, they are threats, and I clearly see their death as justified... Just like an insect that bites me, or if I am a spider, or snake, a human who threatens my death- I bite them. In those moments, I don't care that they are ignorant. They have me cornered. It is isolating, and testing. 

Dating is very difficult. We bond over food.
And I like to smell the female... Not her perfume. My choices are very slim, coming from, well, thinking I had a lot more.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Maybe you can't live, practically, without eating meat... in which case, you're exempt as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not convinced that you've tried everything, though, because I've worked with many people with severely compromised immune systems and we've always managed to find a solution... There are vegan full-nutrition pastes (they taste worse than they sound) that are - relatively - easy on the stomach.



> I forgive a lot and am sometimes not the guy who tells you to kill yourself, and who imagines the earth being scorched in a wave of hell-fire that somehow only takes most humans (and only often my first girlfriend- a nurse, and my sister and her children save the rest because they are lights in my life), but then some fucker lights a scented candle or sprays air freshener and it makes me want to smash everything and murder. My face and mouth go on fire. I feel assaulted. I just fucking hate people sometimes. In these moments to me, they are threats, and I clearly see their death as justified... Just like an insect that bites me, or if I am a spider, a human who threatens my death- I bite them. In those moments, I don't care that they are ignorant. They have me cornered. It is isolating, and testing.



I can relate, to some extent... although I don't get as angry as I used to. I don't think it achieves anything, so I'm working on it... and I recognize that reacting angrily to somebody doing something stupid is ironic because the reaction itself is stupid and I was just contributing to the problem... You refer to "ignorant" people: but, what makes you better than them? You're ignorant about race issues, as far as many members of this forum are concerned, and they react to you the same way you react to people that you perceive to be ignorant...

You should try to chill out, when it comes to stuff that angers you. So should everyone. (Me too.)
You're just allowing it to anger you more; instead, allow it to anger you less... if you can.


----------



## What 23

I try.


----------



## ForEverAfter

That is all you can do. If you want to be a vegan/vegetarian, I'd genuinely like to help you work out what exactly you're intolerant to and how it might be possible to avoid those foods while maintaining a healthy vegan/vegetarian diet... This is a genuine offer. If you're interested, send me a PM with a short list of the foods that you have the worst reactions to and I'll try to work out what the common denominator is.

I've heard of people who are intolerant / allergic to: fruit / wheat / dairy and specific nuts / vegetables, but I've never encountered anyone who is intolerant of "most" plants... It's difficult, sometimes, to pinpoint the allergy because we tend not to consume food as separate ingredients. With salad, for example, you might only have to remove a couple of the ingredients without compromising the overall nutritional balance of the meal.

I can relate, by the way... I'm gluten intolerant and my mother is allergic to sunlight (of all things!).


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> To try and put a smile on a compassionate girl's face.  To show how there is no hostility or anger, but the opposite.  To express my genuine feelings so she knows that she doesn't have to feel defensive, because I like her.



That's cool brother, I was just teasin' a lil bit.


----------



## What 23

I've met someone like that (allergic to sunlight). It was before I knew I was allergic to things, but had symptoms (life, basically). Can she not have any exposure? What happens? That would be crazy.

With respect, and appreciation for your offer, I think you underestimate what I've tried. I've tried just about everything under the sun that I can think of. There may be some things. I also isolate things, testing them separately. Been to foreign markets in search of food I haven't had. 

Oddly enough perhaps I seem to do okay with nuts (sometimes I think it is symbolic/with inference, haha), as long as they are sprouted and dried properly. But im not positive lately. Some of it I wonder if it is mold issues. Mold/bacteria is everywhere. Some batches I can handle. Some I can't. Seemingly. It is hard to tell. Sometimes I think the solution is having everything pristine, fresh from the earth. Don't know. Some maybe.

I may give it some thought, though, and I appreciate the offer.


----------



## ForEverAfter

She tries to avoid sunlight as much as possible, by staying indoors / wearing protective clothing / using medical sunblock but it isn't really possible to avoid altogether unless she never goes outside and keeps the blinds closed at all times, so she pretty much always has dermatological allergic reactions...


----------



## LuGoJ

I would like to let everyone know that I ate 100% vegetarian yesterday. 

I feel that it is the least I could do for my bluelight brothers and sisters. As a sign of good faith, I am going to dedicate myself to eating 100% vegetarian, at least once a week.


----------



## Ninae

I know what freaks people out the most is they think they will have to change the way they live too much. And especially that they will have to miss the salty taste of meat and feel deprived that way. There is no need to miss anything. The different flavours from meat are mostly made up from salt, fat, and some kind of aroma so it can be replaced (especially better than cheap meat).

Some who become vegetarian just start eating Tofu and soya sausages, etc. but you don't have to do that. Many believe living as a vegetarian means following a super-healthy diet and just eating things like nuts and seeds all day, but most don't do that. To make the transition as painless as possible you should try to live as much like what you're used to as possible, unless it's really poor. You don't have to subside on raw vegetables. 

If you eat sandwiches for lunch, continue to eat sandwiches, just without meat in them, etc. You can eat scrambled eggs with vegetables for breakfast, and something like pasta for dinner, so you won't even think about what you used to eat. But it takes some time and effort unless you have someone to prepare it for you.


----------



## murphythecat

you can repeat that, I feel the same way
killing is not for me and I cannot kill anything anymore and I dont eat meat because of that: animals are beings just like us. 
fuck humans for eating them as if animals are inferior: they are not. as if because you can kill a animal and eat it, you should do it. I take control of my responsibility in this life and see clearly that when I buy a piece of meat, it came from a animal I wouldn't have dare to kill and that the more we buy, the more we have to kill to supply the demand.
I understand its easy to see the industry as bigger then us and feel that even if we stop, millions of others wont and will continue to eat meat. but that's not how it works. we all have the responsibility and if we all stop eating meat, the carnage would stop.
anyways!





Smoky said:


> I truly wish to avoid suffering to all beings especially the most innocent, children and animals. And if it can't be avoided, indeed I can do my part which I do daily, helping them and not eating them for God's sake. Ever look into an animals eyes? They are live beings like all of us and deserve compassion and respect.
> Those that hunt for kill, sport - I will never understand and I cannot be friends most often with folks of this horrible mindset… There is something missing there indeed… and it saddens me deeply


----------



## ForEverAfter

> killing is not for me and I cannot kill anything anymore and I dont eat meat because of that: animals are beings just like us.



You either kill or you die. Your body kills living things all the time in order to live.
You can't condemn killing, across the board. It doesn't make any sense.
Would you kill a virus, so that you might live?
How do you prevent your body from doing so?
Don't you kill living plants and eat them?



> fuck humans for eating them as if animals are inferior



Some animals are inferior, aren't they? I'm not suggesting that people should eat them, but I don't see how you can argue that a mouse isn't "inferior" (in many ways) to a human... Intellectual and functional superiority is pretty much a fact, but that doesn't mean that "inferior" animals deserve to die.



> we all have the responsibility and if we all stop eating meat, the carnage would stop.



There are too many cows bred for slaughter. They cannot be released into the wild. So they must die, in one way or another... Keeping them alive and healthy costs money. I take it you're not willing to spend your own money on this? If everybody stopped eating meat, we could stop breeding animals for slaughter and prevent future deaths. Domestic chickens must cease to exist. There is no place in nature for them. Chickens have been so inbred, that - when re-introduced into the wild - they constantly lay fertilized eggs (far more than they can care for) and their chicks end up being slaughtered by predators.

There is no way to save these chickens, overnight, that I can see.
Releasing domesticated species into the wild is problematic.

There is no point in getting upset about people eating meat, or judging them, just because you're fortunate enough to be part of the initial movement. Given different circumstances, you might not be who you are. It's not really an accomplishment.

The animal rights movement will take a long time to introduce permanent change.
People will still be eating meat when you're a 100 years old.
That doesn't mean people are evil. Don't say "fuck them!"
You exist as a result of meat eating.
Everything takes time.
We'll get there.


----------



## Smoky

murphythecat said:


> you can repeat that, I feel the same way
> killing is not for me and I cannot kill anything anymore and I dont eat meat because of that: animals are beings just like us.
> fuck humans for eating them as if animals are inferior: they are not. as if because you can kill a animal and eat it, you should do it. I take control of my responsibility in this life and see clearly that when I buy a piece of meat, it came from a animal I wouldn't have dare to kill and that the more we buy, the more we have to kill to supply the demand.
> I understand its easy to see the industry as bigger then us and feel that even if we stop, millions of others wont and will continue to eat meat. but that's not how it works. we all have the responsibility and if we all stop eating meat, the carnage would stop.
> anyways!



Good point, but some may kill wild animals as they feel they are superior but not all 'eat' animals cos they see them as inferior. I guess some people just are so accustomed to eating meat. I'm accustomed not to eating meat so when I do my body rejects it kinda. I can hardly digest it.
My x bf did a documentary of the slaughter process. It was truly awful to watch… I've also seen 1000's of tiny chicks that just came into this world immediately dumped in a huge machine and compressed to death while they were peeping.  It broke my heart, I can't watch those videos at all.
I take responsibility as well.. I can't change anyone else choices, but I can continue to make mine every day.


----------



## Ninae

I don't judge non-vegetarians like you do, Murphy. That way you'd have to judge everyone you meet and humanity as a whole and it just doesn't work in the long run. But I've also been vegetarian for a long time and you just can't do it that way.

I don't interefere with how other people live in any way and I sure can't be bothered starting that argument with many. But it can get to me when people start talking down to vegetarians and try to make themselves come accross as superior as there are no grounds for that. But it's like they see your existence as an implied judgement on themselves and want to get there first before you have the chance to say anything. It's annoying, but I don't see much of that in real life, except for people who are extremely aggressive about making their own way of life seen as the best.

Apart from that, it's just one of the ugly sides of life I don't like to think about much, so I try not to think about it. If you were to think about the conditions of animals in this world all the time, like the fur industry, it would drive you insane. But that is how people generally live with eating meat, aswell, by not thinking about what they're really doing, and most find it very unpleasent to be reminded as well.


----------



## swilow

The wise human knows when to look away... 

The world is not as dark as we are led to believe anyhow. There is plenty of light out there, plenty of hope. I encountered it today with my niece and nephew, happily gurgling away, fascinated by their toes, making obscure proclamations at random times...  



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> I don't judge non-vegetarians like you do, Murphy.



I try not to also. Its futile and unfair to judge people for one part of their behaviour. Unless you have it all figured out, then I think it best to reserve judgment. 'Best', not always easiest. But agressive vegetarians like our brother Murphy cause problems for the rest of us who are not proselytising. It lumps us into one unreasoning category, and even happened in this thread. It makes this all harder. I have no wish to be in conflict with people; other people seem to enjoy it. Others just cannot see that we are all individuals trying to figure out what the fuck we are.


----------



## Ninae

If someone wanted to be a vegetarian they would be. If they were open to or interested in it they would say so. If they don't say anything it's likely they're trying to be polite and you can't get anywhere with them.

It's not so much if you're vegetarian or not that cause problems, it's more to do with how someone relates to other people. There are some who feel the need to assert themselves as superior in any context and many are used to being able to bully anyone who are different if they can get away with it in real life. But this is something you can't defend that easily when everyone has time to think about it and it's not possible to make everyone admit that a vegetarian lifestyle is inferior. 

That's setting your sights too high no matter how well you usually argue for yourself.


----------



## RichardMooner

willow11 said:


> But agressive vegetarians like our brother Murphy cause problems for the rest of us who are not proselytising. It lumps us into one unreasoning category, and even happened in this thread. It makes this all harder. I have no wish to be in conflict with people; other people seem to enjoy it. Others just cannot see that we are all individuals trying to figure out what the fuck we are.



I think it's always problematic when people start venturing into the territory of absolutism. It's okay to be an absolutist, but it's not okay to be an absolutist if you're going to blindly agree with the culturally pre-defined principles of whatever absolutes you believe in. 

With the Organized Christian Church, I see it a lot in the way sins are defined. In the Christian paradigm, stealing is a sin, concretely, but how exactly do you define stealing? Is it a catch all term for taking something that is not yours, or is it dependent on context? Christ says that if an apple falls from your neighbors tree and you eat it, it is theft. But how do you determine the ownership of the apple of tree? If the seed that the apple tree sprang from was blown in by the wind, is it your neighbors, nobody's, or is it the owner of the apple tree the seed came from? 

Murphy seems to draw his lines extremely thin. Which is a dangerous thing to do, imo.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Murphy is a Buddhist fundamentalist, which can be just as dangerous as being a Christian fundamentalist IMO.
I've been trying to tell him this for some time...

...

I'm not familiar with the apple tree parable. I tried to google the keywords apple / jesus / theft and I couldn't find it.
Can you provide a link?
Thanks.


----------



## Ninae

RichardMooner said:


> I think it's always problematic when people start venturing into the territory of absolutism. It's okay to be an absolutist, but it's not okay to be an absolutist if you're going to blindly agree with the culturally pre-defined principles of whatever absolutes you believe in.



Whoa...that's a bit of a semantic trap there...or a form of get-out clause that can be applied to everything.

I don't think so much of the concept of "Absolutism" or how it's often used as so many seem to use it as an excuse not to take a stand or to blur the lines between what is good or bad (or even claim there is no such thing as all is subjective, etc). Like arguing rape isn't always rape as a nod can mean a shake in another culture. 

So I don't agree with things like that and don't even know how it can be taken seriously sometimes. That way all moral arguments can be reduced to "Let's just agree there is no such thing".


----------



## swilow

I don't think there should be any moral absolutes. Such absolute's are often irrational and overly emotional and are therefore easily transgressed because they have no solid ethical framework and collapse under the slightest pressure (Temptation I guess...). Transgression leads us to guilt and self-punishment and the creation of more absolutes to fail at. It seems futile.

Nearly every organised religion is based on them; look at the state of those institutions now. They are left trying to defend the most illogical and unreasonable crap and it, the very thing which gave them their power, is killing them.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> Whoa...that's a bit of a semantic trap there...or a form of get-out clause that can be applied to everything.
> 
> I don't think so much of the concept of "Absolutism" or how it's often used as so many seem to use it as an excuse not to take a stand or to blur the lines between what is good or bad (or even claim there is no such thing as all is subjective, etc). Like arguing rape isn't always rape as a nod can mean a shake in another culture.
> 
> So I don't agree with things like that and don't even know how it can be taken seriously sometimes. That way all moral arguments can be reduced to "Let's just agree there is no such thing".



I think you're nitpicking.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> Murphy is a Buddhist fundamentalist, which can be just as dangerous as being a Christian fundamentalist IMO.
> I've been trying to tell him this for some time...
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not familiar with the apple tree parable. I tried to google the keywords apple / jesus / theft and I couldn't find it.
> Can you provide a link?
> Thanks.



After consulting Strong's, I have absolutely no idea where I got that. Perhaps I remember it from some patronizing explanation of theft given to me as a child in Church, or something. So weird because I can almost here it word for word in my head, but I can't find it anywhere. Nevertheless, there are two verses in the old testament that essentially work just the same. 

Exodus 22:5 
If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

Deuteronomy 22:1-4 
You shall not see your countryman’s ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman. 2 If your countryman is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him. 3 Thus you shall do with his donkey, and you shall do the same with his garment, and you shall do likewise with anything lost by your countryman, which he has lost and you have found. You are not allowed to neglect them. 4 You shall not see your countryman’s donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up.


----------



## Ninae

RichardMooner said:


> I think you're nitpicking.



LOL. I think you made an easy get-out. Examening an "anti-absolutism" in a critical way is no worse than taking a critical view of absolutism (as far as I can see). In that case you might as well say these two outlooks have no substantial difference and aren't even worth mentioning.

But those parables seem pretty straightforward?


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I think you're nitpicking.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I think you made an easy get-out. Examening an "anti-absolutism" in a critical way is no worse than taking a critical view of absolutism (as far as I can see). In that case you might as well say these two outlooks have no substantial difference and aren't even worth mentioning.
Click to expand...


I didn't understand your reaction to what you quoted, either.
Or, at least, I don't think it warranted that sort of reaction.
What RM said made perfect sense to me.



> Exodus 22:5
> If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.



While I'm not sure that this is meant to be interpreted literally, it functions literally... so, it doesn't really matter either way.
What is literally described in that passage is intentional (and undeniable) theft, isn't it?
You can't let your cattle graze in a paddock that doesn't belong to you, without asking.
It's a serious issue and it (still) happens all the time.
There should be payment / consequences.



> Deuteronomy 22:1-4
> You shall not see your countryman’s ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman. 2 If your countryman is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him. 3 Thus you shall do with his donkey, and you shall do the same with his garment, and you shall do likewise with anything lost by your countryman, which he has lost and you have found. You are not allowed to neglect them. 4 You shall not see your countryman’s donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up.



This passage doesn't even pertain to what we're talking about and - again - I don't disagree with it, if it is interpreted literally. Possession may be nine tenths of the law, but the right thing to do when you find someone else's property is to take care of it and return it to them.


----------



## swilow

I think Ninae felt that an an absolutely anti-absolutist stance was tautological .


----------



## ForEverAfter

What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.



> It's okay to be an absolutist, but it's not okay to be an absolutist if...



An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop... in which case the reaction might be warranted.

...

How's that for nit-picking?


----------



## Ninae

It wasn't directed at him but the general outlook that in other words says "There is no right or wrong - everything is relative", etc. I don't agree that it is and a lot of the time it seems to be used to escape any accountability or criticism. 

And I don't think it's so much that he doesn't understand those parables as that he finds them annoying. As most will find it extremely annoying to be hit over the head with a parable from the bible when they've done something wrong (especially if it's right)


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.
> 
> 
> 
> An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop, in which case the reaction might be warranted.



Absolutely.

Look, I'm just pleased I got to use the word "tautological". I even edited the word contradictory out in favour of it. That is lexical devotion for you. 

Sadly, I appear to have misread Ninae's words or their meaning's have changed.  



I could be tripping my friends. If only I had a top hat, I would doff it gracelessly...


----------



## Ninae

What many who distance themselves from absolutes mean, though, is there doesn't have to be any absolutes when it suits them. And if everyone were like that there would be no absolutes. Of course no on literally believes there are no absolutes, so that wasn't really the issue.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> LOL. I think you made an easy get-out. Examening an "anti-absolutism" in a critical way is no worse than taking a critical view of absolutism (as far as I can see). In that case you might as well say these two outlooks have no substantial difference and aren't even worth mentioning.
> 
> But those parables seem pretty straightforward?



I was referencing the first statement. Being critical of absolutism as it exists within institutionalized systems of ethics, and being critical of anti-absolutism are very different criticisms. I am not anti-absolutist. I was saying that absolutists who do not put acts of "immorality" in context are treading on shaky ground. 

For analogy, in the 1793 when the U.S passed the Fugitive Slave Act, slaves who ran away from plantations had committed the crime of "self-theft" because they were considered to be the private property of another human being, whom they were depriving of by not offering the labor they were legally obligated to offer. 

If you look at it from a theological paradigm, in which it is unethical to own slaves, are runaway slaves still committing the crime of theft?


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.
> 
> 
> 
> An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop... in which case the reaction might be warranted.
> 
> ...
> 
> How's that for nit-picking?



Best I've seen all night.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Nina,
Aren't you absolutely convinced of the psychic/divine powers of various "channelers"?
I mean: how are you any different?



> if everyone were like that there would be no absolutes



Everybody, including you, is like that... at least some of the time.
You seem to repeatedly attempt to elevate yourself above /separate yourself from other people.


----------



## Ninae

I believe in absolutes. I believe things can be either good or bad. I can make excuses and justifications to myself but I can't lie or hide the truth for myself (I don't see it as constructive). 

The validity of psychics, or not, is not something that can be proven or disproven objectively and has nothing to do with absolutes as far as I can see. 

And I don't try to elevate myself, I'm harder than myself than most. However, I do like to share my spiritual experiences and don't see why we shouldn't. Of course we won't all have had the same experiences to talk about but that's what makes it interesting. Some have met God, some are clairvoyant, but who's to say only the part of it you have experienced is valid? I don't look at it that way - I strive to experience more and acknowledge I can have things to learn from many.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> I didn't understand your reaction to what you quoted, either.
> Or, at least, I don't think it warranted that sort of reaction.
> What RM said made perfect sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm not sure that this is meant to be interpreted literally, it functions literally... so, it doesn't really matter either way.
> What is literally described in that passage is intentional (and undeniable) theft, isn't it?
> You can't let your cattle graze in a paddock that doesn't belong to you, without asking.
> It's a serious issue and it (still) happens all the time.
> There should be payment / consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> This passage doesn't even pertain to what we're talking about and - again - I don't disagree with it, if it is interpreted literally. Possession may be nine tenths of the law, but the right thing to do when you find someone else's property is to take care of it and return it to them.



Yes, it pertains to undeniable theft because the verse sates that the pasture definitively belongs to another man. However, the verse does not give reason to the private ownership of the pasture, more broadly, "what makes property private?". 

The Native Americans originally inhabited the Americas, and then colonialism took over, seized all of the land, and kicked them out. Even though there was no exchange of services or payment in most cases, the tribes never regained all of the land they had inhabited in the past, and that land now belongs to somebody else. So how do you determine who's land it really is? The Tribe's because they were there first? The colonists because they had forced the previous inhabitants out?

As for the second verse, it also gives definitive ownership of the livestock, but not reason for that ownership.


----------



## Ninae

But I don't think it was meant to pertain to cases like that where ownership is in question...more to helping yourself to the field of a known neighbour farmer...so that's one example where it doesn't really apply.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I'm not really following you, RM.
Do you own anything?

In the first passage, it is a neighbor's property... and the person who allows their cattle onto it knows that it is their neighbor's property... In the second passage, it would (probably) be pretty clear whether or not the animal was wild or domesticated... The quotations you've provided aren't particularly ambiguous, unless I'm missing something.

...

Here's a contemporary real world translation.

1. It's wrong to enter your neighbor's house and eat from their vegetable garden, when they're not there.
2. It's wrong to find a wallet with cash in it and not do your best to track down the owner.

How can you argue with either of those statements?


----------



## Ninae

I think you have slightly misunderstood how this concept can be used and that is one of the problems with it.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm not really following you, RM.
> Do you own anything?
> 
> In the first passage, it is a neighbor's property... and the person who allows their cattle onto it knows that it is their neighbor's property... In the second passage, it would (probably) be pretty clear whether or not the animal was wild or domesticated... The quotations you've provided aren't particularly ambiguous, unless I'm missing something.
> 
> ...
> 
> Here's a contemporary real world translation.
> 
> 1. It's wrong to enter your neighbor's house and eat from their vegetable garden, when they're not there.
> 2. It's wrong to find a wallet with cash in it and not do your best to track down the owner.
> 
> How can you argue with either of those statements?



Sorry, I've been up for over 24 hours due to a depletion of my ambien prescription, so I'm having a bit of trouble articulating myself.

In the verse from Exodus, we know that the pasture is definitively private property.

The question is "Why is it private property?". Does this make any sense? 

Maybe I've been up for too long. Haha


----------



## ForEverAfter

It makes as much sense as questioning why anything you own (or anybody owns) is their property.
I assume that you're not happy with random people living in your backyard, right? If not, why?



> The validity of psychics, or not, is not something that can be proven or disproven objectively and has nothing to do with absolutes as far as I can see.



Nothing can be proven objectively, can it?


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> But I don't think it was meant to pertain to cases like that where ownership is in question...more to helping yourself to the field of a known neighbour farmer...so that's one example where it doesn't really apply.



That's irrelevant. I'm not questioning the moral conviction behind letting your livestock graze in someone else's field. 

The moral conviction is absolute. It is wrong to allow your livestock to graze in someone else's pasture without asking. That is the absolute. 

The question, is by what terms do we define the ownership of the pasture?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Do you own anything? Do you think it would be right to allow your (hypothetical) pet goat to squeeze through a gap in your (hypothetical) suburban fence, and graze in your (hypothetical) neighbor's yard? How do you define the ownership of your home? If you buy a house, do you consider it public or private property? If you rent a house, do you allow homeless people to live in it? Do you lock the doors? If so, why?


----------



## Ninae

ForEverAfter said:


> Nothing can be proven objectively, can it?



I meant to me an absolute is whether something is wrong or not or a principle that we can agree on. While whether something has happened or not is a truth only those who have seen it happen can know. If a psychic tells you your lifestory or everything that happened to you last year he might have proven himself to you but not to anyone else, so that is particularly subjective.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I see... You're talking about moral absolutism, not absolutism.

What are the objective moral absolutes of the universe?


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> Do you own anything? Do you think it would be right to allow your (hypothetical) pet goat to squeeze through a gap in your (hypothetical) suburban fence, and graze in your (hypothetical) neighbor's yard? How do you define the ownership of your home? If you buy a house, do you consider it public or private property? If you rent a house, do you allow homeless people to live in it? Do you lock the doors? If so, why?



Are you asking from a Biblical perspective, or from my perspective?


----------



## ForEverAfter

I'm asking you, not the Bible...
But, honestly, I don't see the difference.

You said:


> In the Christian paradigm, stealing is a sin, concretely, but how exactly do you define stealing?



How is this a religious issue?
I mean: in society, stealing is a sin (just as concretely)... isn't it?
Stealing is defined through logical processes, as it always has been.
It's no different today.


----------



## Ninae

I have paid for some psychics who have told me lies but there are two who have both been consistent with each other and seem to be familiar with unlimited details from my personal life who I tend to believe.

However, I tend to trust "channels" more than typical psychics. I have learnt to function as a channel to some degree myself and it's not really that strange or feels a bit like someone hijacks your mind and you have access to unlimited energy. The great mystics of the different religions were a form of channels, too, in that they could communicate the truth about our lives to us but it's not all that rare. Either way, it's a lot more profitable for someone if they can tell you the truth as you tend to return to them.


----------



## Ninae

RichardMooner said:


> That's irrelevant. I'm not questioning the moral conviction behind letting your livestock graze in someone else's field.
> 
> The moral conviction is absolute. It is wrong to allow your livestock to graze in someone else's pasture without asking. That is the absolute.
> 
> The question, is by what terms do we define the ownership of the pasture?



I got what you meant but it's like you're trying to make a parable ambigious that wasn't meant to be to show that 1) these parables are wrong and 2) there are no moral absolutes.

This is part of why I don't like it as it's usually misused or not understood correctly. Those parables were (obviously) meant to apply to cases where there is no doubt. And there are enough cases like that so we don't need to go into those who are more ambigious.

It doesn't work to disprove a simple parable meant to show why stealing is wrong.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm asking you, not the Bible.



I would say that it would be wrong to allow my goat to graze on my neighbors grass if it would harm my neighbor. Not because it's "his property", but because it would upset him or cause him distress. 

I do not believe that people are entitled to ownership of anything. I believe that everything belongs to God. 

I currently have a homeless friend living in "my" house, and if I could afford to house more homeless people that were not a threat to me, or my family, I most certainly would. 

I do lock my doors at night, to prevent any possible dangers from entering "my" house.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> I got what you meant but it's like you're trying to make a parable ambigious that wasn't meant to be to show that 1) these parables are wrong and 2) there are no moral absolutes.
> 
> This is part of why I don't like it as it's usually misused or not understood correctly. Those parables were (obviously) meant to apply to cases where there is no doubt. And there are enough cases like that so we don't need to go into those who are more ambigious.
> 
> It doesn't work to disprove a simple parable meant to show why stealing is wrong.



You're still not getting it.

The point is not to disprove the parable.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> You're still not getting it.



With all due respect, you're not getting it.



> I would say that it would be wrong to allow my goat to graze on my neighbors grass if it would harm my neighbor. Not because it's "his property", but because it would upset him or cause him distress.



Okay, so it's wrong unless you know before hand that it's okay with your neighbor (and, therefore, not going to upset them). So far - practically speaking - you share everybody else's opinions about morals pertaining to property and theft.



> I do not believe that people are entitled to ownership of anything. I believe that everything belongs to God.
> 
> I currently have a homeless friend living in "my" house, and if I could afford to house more homeless people that were not a threat to me, or my family, I most certainly would.
> 
> I do lock my doors at night, to prevent any possible dangers from entering "my" house.



But it's not your house, is it? It's God's house.
Whether or not you can afford it is not the issue.
You don't have to feed them.
Just let them live in your yard.
As many as you can fit.
Otherwise, you're not living up to your own statements.

You can attempt to justify it as protecting yourself from danger, but how is that any different from someone living in a gated community? And are you locking your doors or are you locking God's doors? Because, if you're doing the latter, you should check with God first in case that upsets him (according to your logic).

Like all idealists, once your beliefs are dissected they fall apart... Unless you're willing to abandon all property, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on (in the context of this discussion).


----------



## Ninae

RichardMooner said:


> You're still not getting it.
> 
> The point is not to disprove the parable.



I get what you mean, but by disproving the parable you're trying to disprove the moral absolute of stealing is wrong by extention. And also, just because a parable used to demonstrate a moral absolute is wrong doesn't mean it's not a valid absolute.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm asking you, not the Bible...
> But, honestly, I don't see the difference.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> How is this a religious issue?
> I mean: in society, stealing is a sin (just as concretely)... isn't it?
> Stealing is defined through logical processes, as it always has been.
> It's no different today.



It's a religious issue because we're talking about moral absolutes, and without some sort of theological paradigm, nothing is absolute. 

But that answers my question, you would define stealing as is defined by our current social structure?


----------



## Ninae

Moral absolutes have nothing to do with theology. That would be like saying humans have no inherent ability to be moral without a religious belief. Which I don't believe. 

But I would stop here, you're spinning yourself quite a yarn.


----------



## ForEverAfter

^... +1



> without some sort of theological paradigm, nothing is absolute



Nonsense. It is wrong to rape people to death... It is unfortunate that some people can't see that without a religion telling them it is so. Ideally, religions shouldn't have to exist to inform of us of things that are obviously / objectively / absolutely wrong.

Like I said before: unless you're willing to abandon all personal property, you're contradicting yourself.
You own a house to protect yourself and your family. It is not God's house. It is your house.
You are not a saint and, clearly, you don't live by your ideals.

This is going in circles, and the thread is careening off-track.
I'm done with this discussion...


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> I get what you mean, but by disproving the parable you're trying to disprove the moral absolute of stealing is wrong by extention. And also, just because a parable used to demonstrate a moral absolute is wrong doesn't mean it's not a valid absolute.



No, I am not trying to disprove the moral absolute. It goes no further than where it's at. Letting your livestock graze on someone else's field is wrong. That's the absolute, so now you have to decide how to define private ownership. 

The moral absolute is not necessarily wrong at all. I'm saying that you have to question whether your livestock grazed in someone else's pasture, or not.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> ^... +1
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It is wrong to rape people to death... It is unfortunate that some people can't see that without a religion telling them it is so. Ideally, religions shouldn't have to exist to inform of us of things that are obviously / objectively / absolutely wrong.



No. Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong? 

I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.


----------



## Ninae

I just didn't assume the literal question of the lifestock was the main point. In that case, you're not debating in the way people normally do.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong?
> 
> I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.



It is wrong because I don't want to be raped.

What are you suggesting, that atheists don't have the same basic moral code as theists?
I believe in God, but I don't adhere to any particular religion for my morals.
They are obvious, to me, just as they are obvious to anyone else.

If you need a religion to tell you that rape is wrong, then there's something seriously wrong with your moral fiber: I don't believe that you need religion to tell you it is wrong, by the way; I don't believe there is anything wrong with your moral fiber.



> I'm saying that you have to question whether your livestock grazed in someone else's pasture, or not.



No, you don't... Pastures have fences... In order for your livestock to graze in somebody else's pasture, you'd have to open the gate and let them do it. If they broke through, then - according to the parable - you need to inform (and, potentially compensate) the owner of the pasture.


----------



## Ninae

RichardMooner said:


> No. Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong?
> 
> I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.



This is a horrible thing to say and assumes no faith in humanity. It's like saying you don't believe humans are inherently capable of feeling empathy and stopping themselves from doing each other harm. Which I must greatly disagree with.

Also, the true God is within us, not within the pages of the bible. The God within us can stop it, yes. And when you're connected to the whole performing an act of violence towards someone else would be unbearable.


----------



## ForEverAfter

^... +1

I'm done.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> I just didn't assume the literal question of the lifestock was the main point. In that case, you're not debating in the way people normally do.



What? Man, it's an analogy.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> This is a horrible thing to say and assumes no faith in humanity. It's like saying you don't believe humans are inherently capable of feeling empathy and stopping themselves from doing each other harm. Which I must greatly disagree with.
> 
> Also, the true God is within us, not within the pages of the bible. The God within us can stop it, yes. And when you're connected to the whole performing an act of violence towards someone else would be unbearable.



Of course I do. Doesn't make anything we feel to be right or wrong, actually right or wrong. 

I'm not christian.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> It is wrong because I don't want to be raped.
> 
> What are you suggesting, that atheists don't have the same basic moral code as theists?
> I believe in God, but I don't adhere to any particular religion for my morals.
> They are obvious, to me, just as they are obvious to anyone else.
> 
> If you need a religion to tell you that rape is wrong, then there's something seriously wrong with your moral fiber: I don't believe that you need religion to tell you it is wrong, by the way; I don't believe there is anything wrong with your moral fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't... Pastures have fences... In order for your livestock to graze in somebody else's pasture, you'd have to open the gate and let them do it. If they broke through, then - according to the parable - you need to inform (and, potentially compensate) the owner of the pasture.



No, and I will not explain this again. Read The Death of God if you're really interested. The concept is not that hard to grasp. Reason can't define an objective moral right and wrong. Therefore, it takes the existence of something (doesn't matter what) that surpasses human reason to define an objective moral right and wrong. Not something to lay out laws, but something to give meaning to the inherent knowledge of right and wrong that exists within us. Otherwise it means nothing.


----------



## Ninae

This is a good example of what I meant and what sets of alarm bells when I hear people expressing themselves in that way to begin with. From experience they have either:


a) Some shady moral principles they want to defend (even if it's just denying the harm drug-addiction can do to themselves and people around them). 

or

b) Some serious breach in logic somewhere.


Neither of which I think should be encouraged. Not that everyone will turn out like that but more often than not they tend to. 

You can also ask yourself of the possibility of discussing the ethics of vegetarianism when it can be hard enough to agree on the most basic moral principles.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> With all due respect, you're not getting it.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so it's wrong unless you know before hand that it's okay with your neighbor (and, therefore, not going to upset them). So far - practically speaking - you share everybody else's opinions about morals pertaining to property and theft.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not your house, is it? It's God's house.
> Whether or not you can afford it is not the issue.
> You don't have to feed them.
> Just let them live in your yard.
> As many as you can fit.
> Otherwise, you're not living up to your own statements.
> 
> You can attempt to justify it as protecting yourself from danger, but how is that any different from someone living in a gated community? And are you locking your doors or are you locking God's doors? Because, if you're doing the latter, you should check with God first in case that upsets him (according to your logic).
> 
> Like all idealists, once your beliefs are dissected they fall apart... Unless you're willing to abandon all property, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on (in the context of this discussion).



I truly do not believe it is my property. I have no inherent right to own anything, nobody does. Does that mean I can not have items that are only for my personal use? No. 

My beliefs have yet to fall apart.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> This is a good example of what I meant and what sets of alarm bells when I hear people expressing themselves in that way to begin with. From experience they have either:
> 
> 
> a) Some shady moral principles they want to defend (even if it's just denying the harm drug-addiction can do to themselves and people around them).
> 
> or
> 
> b) Some serious breach in logic somewhere.
> 
> 
> Neither of which I think should be encouraged. Not that everyone will turn out like that but more often than not they tend to.
> 
> You can also ask yourself of the possibility of discussing the ethics of vegetarianism when it can be hard enough to agree on the most basic moral principles.



Shady morals according to what Ninae? What makes a moral shady? Because you think a moral is shady it is shady? This is pointless. I'm done.


----------



## Ninae

Wrongly assuming something that is bad isn't. Like the example of a drug-addiction someone are in denial of harms them (doesn't apply to when it doesn't harm anyone). It's not subjective, that is my whole point.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> I believe in absolutes. I believe things can be either good or bad. I can make excuses and justifications to myself but I can't lie or hide the truth for myself (I don't see it as constructive).
> 
> The validity of psychics, or not, is not something that can be proven or disproven objectively and has nothing to do with absolutes as far as I can see.
> 
> And I don't try to elevate myself, I'm harder than myself than most. However, I do like to share my spiritual experiences and don't see why we shouldn't. Of course we won't all have had the same experiences to talk about but that's what makes it interesting. Some have met God, some are clairvoyant, but who's to say only the part of it you have experienced is valid? I don't look at it that way - I strive to experience more and acknowledge I can have things to learn from many.



I disagree, I think your angel ancestrial beliefs support egoic spiritual classism.  Some people are angels in disguise based on how their eyes appeal to you.  Those who lack that luster are just regular lower spiritually class people.  Am I wrong?  Or did everyone use to be angels?


----------



## turkalurk

I think 1 is inaccurate.


1. Its ok when an animal of yours enters your neighbor's yard and eats from their  garden, when yours is bare, as long as you let you repay your neighbor with the best of your garden.

it doesn't say you yourself can, nor does it say you don't have to repay.

none of these are stealing more like a forced borrowing.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> Or did everyone use to be angels?



Yes, human beings in their original divine form were a kind of angels, without exception. But they could more rightly be called divine human beings (with the "Christ" template to work with).

Sometimes it can also get confused as some humans can retain their childhood innocence up until an advanced age and a good/spiritual soul can give off that "angelic" vibe anyway. But it was just meant as a personal outlook, not like the final authority of anything, although some of the examples I gave I have had confirmed (after I suspected it).

Don't worry your mind so much about it, it's just something to share.


----------



## turkalurk

circular logic!  you haven't answered the question of how does one no who is assuming correctly.   couodn't it be that you are assuming something is bad because it seems that way to you, but it might just be your assumption and short-sightness.  Say you convinced me I ought to eat vegan, but I bought some tainted spinach and died.   You thought you were doing a good deed, but you ended up getting me killed!  Nobody knows how another should live their life.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Anyone downplaying the significance of cattle-farmers grazing on neighboring properties is not familiar with the realities of farming... It is certainly theft, just like stealing a Playstation is... and if you'd ever attempted to operate a cattle farm, you'd be able to see that.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> Say you convinced me I ought to eat vegan, but I bought some tainted spinach and died.   You thought you were doing a good deed, but you ended up getting me killed!



What does this have to do with anything we've talked about?

I didn't buy the spinach, and you might as well have bought it anyway, or bought tainted meat. I wouldn't have meant for you to be killed by tainted spinach as an outcome of being vegan and it's not a likely outcome in any sense. So I don't see how it has anything to do with me or this argument. 

As for your other question, I sense spiritual energies because I'm sensitive to them, like someone who is clairvoyant can see energy around people. So I can sometimes pick up on their spiritual nature. That's just how it is.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Anyone downplaying the significance of cattle-farmers grazing on neighboring properties is not familiar with the realities of farming... It is certainly theft, just like stealing a Playstation is... and if you'd ever attempted to operate a cattle farm, you'd be able to see that.



Absolutism is silly to me.  An absolutist takes a stance against, not just the killing of livestock to eat, but supporting the killing by eating it.  Then we talk about theft and they say it is always wrong to borrow from your neighbor without asking even when you intend to repay them with the greatest of yours.  They didn't have fences and phones in the bible day.  Your flock might starve to death before you find them.  Furthermore, how would you look for your neighbor and keep your hungry flock from eating whereever they find food?  

It seems the absolutist would rather see their whole flock starve to death just to keep their sense of moral integrity intact, just to stay on that high horse.

This exemplifies my point about veganism as an ethical principle, we have know idea what kind of harm veganism as an absolute would cause, but its absurd to think there wouldn't be any.


----------



## turkalurk

Willow, you mentioned being interested in alternatives, but did you read that link I posted on the lab grown burgers?  I have provided a healthy compromise and not one of you has commented on it.  DOES IT NOT EXCITE YOU TO BE IN THE MIDST OF PROGRESS?


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> What does this have to do with anything we've talked about?
> I didn't buy the spinach, and you might as well have bought it anyway, or bought tainted meat. I wouldn't have meant for you to be killed by tainted spinach as an outcome of being vegan and it's not a likely outcome in any sense. So I don't see how it has anything to do with me or this argument.
> 
> As for your other question, I sense spiritual energies because I'm sensitive to them, like someone who is clairvoyant can see energy around people. So I can sometimes pick up on their spiritual nature. That's just how it is.



its one thing to THINK you know that eating meat is wrong for you, its another thing to know what everyone ought to do.  That is what absolutism implies.  I thought you didn't believe in an absolutist position because you said it was a personal thing?  I thought you implied no judgement against those who eat meat?  Now you are saying their logic is breached, or they are in denial and trying to rationalize the harm they do.


----------



## murphythecat

lol, your funny
never even heard of buddhist fondamentalist.
your mixed up, its all right

im a theravada buddhist.

I believe in moral absolutes and so far, no one ever convince me otherwise.





ForEverAfter said:


> Murphy is a Buddhist fundamentalist, which can be just as dangerous as being a Christian fundamentalist IMO.
> I've been trying to tell him this for some time...
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not familiar with the apple tree parable. I tried to google the keywords apple / jesus / theft and I couldn't find it.
> Can you provide a link?
> Thanks.





ForEverAfter said:


> I see... You're talking about moral absolutism, not absolutism.
> 
> What are the objective moral absolutes of the universe?


dont kill
dont steal
dont take something that was not offered.
dont hurt emotionally someone or speak if your intention is to hurt another being.
dont lie

stuff like that is universal moral absolutes and if your goal is to be happy, one need to respect that or else guilt will follow oneselve


----------



## Ninae

Is this really necessary at this point?


----------



## turkalurk

Your absolutist beliefs do not seem congruent to theravada buddhism.  Its one thing to read some literature and relate wuth how you interpret it, but how much instruction have you had with an actual Buddhist?


----------



## murphythecat

ive just repeated the buddhist precepts. I mean, its the basic moral conduct of any buddhist and its absolutely congruent with buddhism. 
and i wont try to show you how much I know about buddhism, I dont see what I will gain from that and I dont see what you try to gain by questionning how much I know. 





turkalurk said:


> Your absolutist beliefs do not seem congruent to theravada buddhism.  Its one thing to read some literature and relate wuth how you interpret it, but how much instruction have you had with an actual Buddhist?


absolutist belief?  why would you even say that. really crazy how much judgments you just portrayed here. questioning how much I know, implying I might not know much, dont see the point at all. 

we all have absolute beliefs. everything we do in life is based upon our beliefs.


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> Wrongly assuming something that is bad isn't. Like the example of a drug-addiction someone are in denial of harms them (doesn't apply to when it doesn't harm anyone). It's not subjective, that is my whole point.


 What makes something bad?


----------



## turkalurk

Karma Lekshe Tsomo, a professor of theology and a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, explains,"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions. 'Buddhism' encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices, and the canonical scriptures leave room for a range of interpretations. All of these are grounded in a theory of intentionality, and individuals are encouraged to analyze issues carefully for themselves. ... When making moral choices, individuals are advised to examine their motivation--whether aversion, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, or compassion--and to weigh the consequences of their actions in light of the Buddha's teachings."
-http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/morality1.htm


----------



## murphythecat

a thought or a action that objectively hurt oneselve or could hurt another being.





RichardMooner said:


> What makes something bad?


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> Anyone downplaying the significance of cattle-farmers grazing on neighboring properties is not familiar with the realities of farming... It is certainly theft, just like stealing a Playstation is... and if you'd ever attempted to operate a cattle farm, you'd be able to see that.



After reading this, I realize that you've had absolutely no idea, whatsoever, what I was even talking about.


----------



## Ninae

Simply if it hurts yourself or anyone else. But lack of understanding of what is good and bad can lead to just as many problems as bad intentions. That's a way of having "shady moral values" too.

So, as you would say, it shouldn't be that hard to grasp (and please don't answear with something like "But raping someone can be good for me so who's to say it's not good and bad?" Just no).


----------



## RichardMooner

murphythecat said:


> a thought or a action that objectively hurt oneselve or could hurt another being.


 That was not directed at you.  I was talking to Ninae.


----------



## murphythecat

the precepts are the moral rules. theres no interpretation here when it comes to the precepts.

she is talking about moral choice and indeed, every choice/actions we make must be examined with the right intent and must never however contredict the precepts.
if you break a precepts, suffering will follow.



turkalurk said:


> Karma Lekshe Tsomo, a professor of theology and a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, explains,"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions. 'Buddhism' encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices, and the canonical scriptures leave room for a range of interpretations. All of these are grounded in a theory of intentionality, and individuals are encouraged to analyze issues carefully for themselves. ... When making moral choices, individuals are advised to examine their motivation--whether aversion, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, or compassion--and to weigh the consequences of their actions in light of the Buddha's teachings."
> -http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/morality1.htm


however, some precepts are much much worse to break then others.
killing or hurting is very bad
lying is less bad 
ect


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> Simply if it hurts yourself or anyone else. But lack of understanding of what is good and bad can lead to just as many problems as bad intentions. That's a way of having "shady moral values" too.
> 
> So, as you would say, it shouldn't be that hard to grasp (and please don't answear with something like "But raping someone can be good for me so who's to say it's not good and bad?" Just no).



Has nothing to do with it being good or bad for anyone. 

Why is hurting another person wrong? 

 (And don't reply with something like "if you can't figure that out for yourself then you lack the ability to empathize.  I am perfectly capable of empathy, and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong.  That is not the issue at hand. The issue is why it is right or wrong.) 

Just because you feel something is true, does not make it true.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> After reading this, I realize that you've had absolutely no idea, whatsoever, what I was even talking about.



Wasn't talking to you, mate. I was responding to turk.


----------



## turkalurk

Yes rape is bad for the person being raped we can all agree.  Unless you like the sort of thing, there is a fetish for everything.  I would certainly say it is wrong for me to do, but it exists si there is place for it in the grand scheme of things.  A lesson about the way of the world that motivates progress in an unusual way by teaching us about actions and their consequences, or by providing  a mechanism for how characteristics that provide strength can combine with the charactistics or empathy and compassion.  Sometimes out of the most vile of circumstances even something of value can emerge from the ashes.  Even raped women can birth beautiful human beings that can put the power of their father to a good and righteous use.  He might decide to be fight crime and be the protector of the innocent.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Wasn't talking to you, mate. I was responding to turk.



I doubt that changes his opinion.


----------



## murphythecat

what you feel is true if what you feel affects you. objectively, everything we feel shall change, but if you feel something negative, it makes your reality negative for as long as you feel it.

maybe you meant think? what you think is true doesnt make it true? and that I agree. we think a lot of things that isnt true at all.



RichardMooner said:


> Has nothing to do with it being good or bad for anyone.
> 
> Why is hurting another person wrong?
> 
> (And don't reply with something like "if you can't figure that out for yourself then you lack the ability to empathize.  I am perfectly capable of empathy, and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong.  That is not the issue at hand. The issue is why it is right or wrong.)
> 
> Just because you feel something is true, does not make it true.


----------



## Ninae

When the overwhelming majority of humanity feels something is really wrong, and it goes against our conscience, it is generally wrong. I don't see any need to debate with someone whether murder and other ways of hurting people is wrong. If you can't relate to that you have a deeper problem.

You might not be able to feel what is true but that is the only way we really have. Empathy lies in the heart. Not in the rational mind (although if you're sane it should be understood there too).



RichardMooner said:


> Just because you feel something is true, does not make it true.



I could feel something was off with you.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I doubt that changes his opinion.



It should, because what he said doesn't make any sense.



			
				murphy said:
			
		

> I believe in moral absolutes and so far, no one ever convince me otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the objective moral absolutes of the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) dont kill
> (2) dont steal
> (3) dont take something that was not offered.
> (4) dont hurt emotionally someone or speak if your intention is to hurt another being.
> (5) dont lie
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I agree with 4 and a definitely don't agree with 5, but - otherwise - we're more or less on the same page. The first three need a bit of tweaking... 

1) Like I said earlier, you can't condemn killing across the board. You need to kill viruses and plants to live. If we, as a species, refused to kill anything - including potential threats, bacterial life forms and plant-life - then we'd struggle to survive.

2/3) And it's not absolutely wrong to steal, in all possible situations. If you're going to starve to death and you still a loaf of bread, as the classic example goes, that's not unquestionably wrong... assuming that you asked first and it was denied of you. To believe, absolutely, that taking anything that doesn't belong to you - in any given situation - is problematic.

4) The fourth isn't clear enough for me to accept it absolutely. Sometimes you need to say things to people that will hurt people.

5) And, the fifth... It is not absolutely wrong to lie, is it? There are many exceptions to this. If a little girl's mother has been ripped apart by a gang of bloodthirsty cannibalistic rapists and the girl says "What happened to mommy? I want to know everything!" do you tell her?

...

A) It is absolutely wrong to kill people, unless it is in self-defense.
B) It is absolutely wrong to rape.
C) It is absolutely wrong to steal, assuming that you do not need whatever you're stealing to survive.

These clauses/exceptions are important.
The wording needs to be clear. Otherwise, it's dangerous.
(I don't think there are any exceptions with rape.)



> Why is hurting another person wrong?
> 
> (And don't reply with something like "if you can't figure that out for yourself then you lack the ability to empathize. I am perfectly capable of empathy, and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is why it is right or wrong.)



Empathy is involved in the reasoning. It is wrong because we know we wouldn't like it... We are smart enough to recognize the pain it causes other people and smart enough to recognize that we, too, are people... and - finally - smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.

I've already said this. We know it is wrong, because we wouldn't like it done to us.
You can't absolutely separate feelings and logic into two distinct categories that don't overlap.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> the precepts are the moral rules. theres no interpretation here when it comes to the precepts.
> 
> she is talking about moral choice and indeed, every choice/actions we make must be examined with the right intent and must never however contredict the precepts.
> if you break a precepts, suffering will follow.
> 
> 
> however, some precepts are much much worse to break then others.
> killing or hurting is very bad
> lying is less bad
> ect



No, itS  hard to tell if any of those are bad taken out of their context and applied as abolutes.  There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism.  You did read that part, right?  Attachment to precepts seem like Ego to me, but I am not a Buddhist.  I am just someone who minored in Philosophy.


----------



## murphythecat

all those things have been covered over and over in buddhist tradition. those exemption are interesting and I agree, but theres a lot of if and buts. dhammawheel  is a great forum and you can google: killing virus dhammawheel and you will see a lot of threads talking about that, and all the other topic youve mentioned.

for example, the girls asking what happened to her mother, you dont have to lie, nothing happened, you can say we will tell you in due time. ect.
but again, really, make some research of your own as all those points are very valid but have been answered countless of times!


----------



## murphythecat

yes, the precepts are moral absolutes. 
however, like Tsomo said, we must look at each context differently. but if the intention of someone is to kill, steal, lie, hurt ect, suffering is bound to happen each and every time. like foreverafter said, and I agree, there are situation where confilct may arise.
if you kill something that try to kill you, the intention was to protect yourself, not to kill. therefore, we cannot judge any situation, the only person who can judge and know for sure is the person doing the action as he only can know his true intentions.
. 





turkalurk said:


> No, itS  hard to tell if any of those are bad taken out of their context and applied as abolutes.  There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism.  You did read that part, right?  Attachment to precepts seem like Ego to me, but I am not a Buddhist.  I am just someone who minored in Philosophy.


----------



## ForEverAfter

He's right.

You don't seem to know much about Buddhism, for a self-proclaimed Buddhist.
I suspect that you've read a limited amount and applied it fundamentally to your life.
That's how you come across, anyway.

The other day you said that re-incarnation has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Google the keywords: moral absolutes buddhism.
Spend a couple of minutes reading.


----------



## Ninae

This reminds me of the saying "You will first be free when you align your will with the will of God or you choose to follow divine law by your own free will".

Meaning, from then on you will only want to do good so only good things will happen to you. Also called achieving liberation from the cycle of suffering. A powerful truth, but one that can be hard for humanity to accept. 

At least I can't see it any other way, in all honesty.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> Wasn't talking to you, mate. I was responding to turk.


 Oh.  My misunderstanding.  Sorry.


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> He's right.
> 
> You don't seem to know much about Buddhism, for a self-proclaimed Buddhist.
> I suspect that you've read a limited amount and applied it fundamentally to your life.
> That's how you come across, anyway.
> 
> The other day you said that re-incarnation has nothing to do with Buddhism.
> 
> Google the keywords: moral absolutes buddhism.
> Spend a couple of minutes reading.


whatever dude, if it makes you feel great to think that! however, from how many conversation on the subject, its quite clear your understanding of buddhism is very limited and you seem to be mixed up. 
I suggest ayya khema books, ajahn chah, ajahn brahm and dhamma wheel forum for any question you may have.

re incarnation is not a buddhist concept. google it


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> all those things have been covered over and over in buddhist tradition. those exemption are interesting and I agree, but theres a lot of if and buts. dhammawheel  is a great forum and you can google: killing virus dhammawheel and you will see a lot of threads talking about that, and all the other topic youve mentioned.
> 
> for example, the girls asking what happened to her mother, you dont have to lie, nothing happened, you can say we will tell you in due time. ect.
> but again, really, make some research of your own as all those points are very valid but have been answered countless of times!




You are the one who needs to do research.  If you say it is absolutely wrong to lie, then say unless (fill in blank): you have just contradicted yourself and in essence told a lie(said something untrue).  If it absolute, it stands on its own with no exceptions to the rule.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I'm not sure if you're talking to me.
I never said it was absolutely wrong to lie.


----------



## turkalurk

RichardMooner said:


> Oh.  My misunderstanding.  Sorry.


 can you read what he responded to and tell me how that has changed anything because now I am confused by what you meant.  Or, are you just assuming it changes anything?


----------



## RichardMooner

Ninae said:


> When the overwhelming majority of humanity feels something is really wrong, and it goes against our conscience, it is generally wrong. I don't see any need to debate with someone whether murder and other ways of hurting people is wrong. If you can't relate to that you have a deeper problem.
> 
> You might not be able to feel what is true but that is the only way we really have. Empathy lies in the heart. Not in the rational mind (although if you're sane it should be understood there too).
> 
> 
> 
> I could feel something was off with you.


 
You won't sit here and debate why something is objectively right or wrong because you cannot.  You have no argument.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> can you read what he responded to and tell me how that has changed anything because now I am confused by what you meant. Or, are you just assuming it changes anything?



You need to re-read it.
I was responding to something you said, not RM..
So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
RM never said any such thing.



> You won't sit here and debate why something is objectively right or wrong because you cannot. You have no argument.



It's such an easy stupid argument.
It's OBVIOUSLY wrong. I've already explained why.
Care to respond to this:



> Why is hurting another person wrong?
> 
> (And don't reply with something like "if you can't figure that out for yourself then you lack the ability to empathize. I am perfectly capable of empathy, and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is why it is right or wrong.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empathy is involved in the reasoning. It is wrong because we know we wouldn't like it... We are smart enough to recognize the pain it causes other people and smart enough to recognize that we, too, are people... and - finally - smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.
> 
> I've already said this. We know it is wrong, because we wouldn't like it done to us.
> You can't absolutely separate feelings and logic into two distinct categories that don't overlap.
Click to expand...


??


----------



## Ninae

Saying things like "You have no argument" doesn't mean you've won. I've already argued with you as far as I feel I can get. It won't get any better.


----------



## murphythecat

the intention is what matters.
if your intention is  to protect someone form something it would hurt her very bad, and you dont lie, but omit to tell her the truth as maybe the truth is not yours to tell, the situation is entirely different.
intention is key here.
if your intention is to kill, steal, lie, hurt, suffering will always happen!
every situation, like Tsomo said, is different and shouldnt be judge by anyone. the only one who can really judge and know, is himself and one should always know in every situation what his intentions are.


turkalurk said:


> You are the one who needs to do research.  If you say it is absolutely wrong to lie, then say unless (fill in blank): you have just contradicted yourself and in essence told a lie(said something untrue).  If it absolute, it stands on its own with no exceptions to the rule.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Again, he's right.

You've trapped yourself.

You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...


----------



## murphythecat

if only you knew, you would freak out about buddhism.
even listening to music is to be abbandonned.
even having sex and looking for sex is seen as bad

but I promise, if your intention is to hurt, kill, steal, lie, you will suffer.


ForEverAfter said:


> Again, he's right.
> 
> You've trapped yourself.
> 
> You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> This reminds me of the saying "You will first be free when you align your will with the will of God or you choose to follow divine law by your own free will".
> 
> Meaning, from then on you will only want to do good so only good things will happen to you. Also called achieving liberation from the cycle of suffering. A powerful truth, but one that can be hard for humanity to accept.
> 
> At least I can't see it any other way, in all honesty.



i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence.  Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.


----------



## Ninae

ForEverAfter said:


> Again, he's right.
> 
> You've trapped yourself.
> 
> You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...




That wouldn't need to happen if one could assume we have the judgement-power to know when something is wrong and when it's not - like the difference between a murder and a mercy-killing. But to do that you would need to have a sense of right and wrong and know what is generally wrong in the first place.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence.  Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.



Another get-out clause, this is getting silly. And try to post when you're sober enough that you can spell.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> if only you knew, you would freak out about buddhism.
> even listening to music is to be abbandonned.
> even having sex and looking for sex is seen as bad
> 
> but I promise, if your intention is to hurt, kill, steal, lie, you will suffer.



I do know. I mentioned to you, in at least one other thread, that you will probably be expected to be sexual abstinent if you decide to become a monk... The fifth precept is alcohol and drug consumption, so that's out too... No sex. No drugs. No rock and roll. Sounds awesome...

You advertise fundamental Buddhism (what you're describing) like it's the answer to everyone's problems.
You said in another thread that the world would be a beautiful place if everybody became monks...
But, ignoring the simple fact that we will die out as a species if we stop having sex, it would be boring.
I don't want to be a Catholic monk and I don't want to be a Buddhist monk either.
I like sex. I like music. There's nothing wrong with either of them.

You're on a drug forum, suggesting that drugs are absolutely wrong.
The third precept, about sex, doesn't suggest abstinence: I believe it is against rape.
It translates, roughly, to "sexual misconduct"... which is too vague.
It has been interpreted - fundamentally - to convince people that sex is bad.

Sex is bad?
What the fuck?
That's stupid.

You never heard of fundamental Buddhism, but you're describing people who can't listen to music and have sex? Doesn't that ring a couple of bells? How is it SO far removed from other fundamentalists who lead simple sexually abstinent lives, because they can't read between the lines?

I know a lot of Buddhists that would agree with me, on this.
I've talked to them about it. Most Buddhists aren't fundamentalists.


----------



## murphythecat

your the perfect example of judging without knowing.

sexual misconduct is very clear and well explained. dhamma wheel, access to insight may help you to clarify every question you may have


ForEverAfter said:


> I do know. I mentioned to you, in at least one other thread, that you will probably be expected to be sexual abstinent if you decide to become a monk... The fifth precept is alcohol and drug consumption, so that's out too... No sex. No drugs. No rock and roll. Sounds awesome...
> 
> You advertise fundamental Buddhism (what you're describing) like it's the answer to everyone's problems.
> You said in another thread that the world would be a beautiful place if everybody became monks...
> But, ignoring the simple fact that we will die out as a species if we stop having sex, it would be boring.
> I don't want to be a Catholic monk and I don't want to be a Buddhist monk either.
> I like sex. I like music. There's nothing wrong with either of them.
> 
> You're on a drug forum, suggesting that drugs are absolutely wrong.
> The third precept, about sex, doesn't suggest abstinence: I believe it is against rape.
> It translates, roughly, to "sexual misconduct"... which is too vague.
> It has been interpreted - fundamentally - to convince people that sex is bad.
> 
> Sex is bad?
> What the fuck?
> That's stupid.


----------



## murphythecat

you still have free will.


turkalurk said:


> i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence.  Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.


----------



## Ninae

I believe the main reason it has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> your the perfect example of judging without knowing.



I know exactly what I'm doing.



> I believe the main reason it has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.



Victims of sex or victims of rape?
They're not the same thing.


----------



## Ninae

Of course victims of rape or abuse.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> You need to re-read it.
> I was responding to something you said, not RM..
> So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
> You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
> RM never said any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??


My post was criticizing your interpretation of hus quote from the Bible.  The discussion is still about the priblems of wn absolutist approach.  His passage wasn't actually about stealing, there was much more context involved then you implied by your paraphrasing of the passage.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Dude, you're drunk.
You can hardly type.



> They didn't have fences and phones in the bible day.



They didn't have fences?

...

This is what you said, that I responded to:



> I think 1 is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 1. Its ok when an animal of yours enters your neighbor's yard and eats from their garden, when yours is bare, as long as you let you repay your neighbor with the best of your garden.
> 
> it doesn't say you yourself can, nor does it say you don't have to repay.
> 
> none of these are stealing more like a forced borrowing.



First of all: if you'd ever raised cattle, you wouldn't have said it was like borrowing. It's not. It's stealing.

Secondly: 



> If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.



This doesn't say that it's okay to let your animals graze in another man's field.
It's saying if you steal, you should do the right thing and come clean and make amends.

...

If you steal a loaf of bread, then you go back and pay for it a week later, you still stole it.


----------



## turkalurk

What is my will free from?  Ideas are rarely so absolute.  To me, freedom as an abolute with no reference to contrast it with, make  little sense.  I find it strange you call yourself a Theravada Buddhist.  It could be said that technically you are lying.  What kind of instruction have you had?


----------



## turkalurk

Resorting to ad hominem attacks are ya.  They had fences, but did not fence their entire property back then, no need to strawman, you knew ehwh I meant, did you not?  Do you honestly believe they had a grid of fenced in property they contained their cattle in?  

You fallacious arguments lack substance and did not even attempt to address the issue presented.  Is your intent to communicate or win a conversation?


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Of course victims of rape or abuse.



What does "it's not just a positive" mean, then?



> I believe the main reason (rape) has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.



...



> Resorting to ad hominem attacks are ya.



No, I'm just saying: maybe you should get some rest.
You're struggling, more and more, to construct sentences properly as time goes on.

...

And, yes. There were farms with defined borders.
Otherwise the passage wouldn't make any sense.
You might be confusing nomadic herders with farmers.


----------



## turkalurk

here is my version of an ad hominem attack.  I don't expect rationality from someone who argues whether or not he  is an asian trapped in a caucasion's body.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Ouch!
Wow, you really got me there.

8)


----------



## Ninae

I just mentioned some of the negatives that come out of the sexual impulse (no one bedrudges you positive forms of sexuality).

The big problem used to be lack of birth-control, which they still don't have in all parts of the world. The lives of men, women, and children would be ruined. Women had no rights, anyway, and men would fight each other, etc. 

It was a mess, so one of the main political and social agendas was to seek to limit it, and it was necessary. So it also carried over into religion which was used to carry out political agendas with. Although it has nothing to really do with religion but is still one of the top reasons why many have a problem with it.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> That wouldn't need to happen if one could assume we have the judgement-power to know when something is wrong and when it's not - like the difference between a murder and a mercy-killing. But to do that you would need to have a sense of right and wrong and know what is generally wrong in the first place.



I have given plenty of examples when things aren't that simple.  Its not always easy to know which way is the best way for all.  Maybe variation and diversity have their place in assuring survival.  If we were all the same we would only have one solution to every problem.

You seem to confirm my point about superficial morality and feeling morally superior because you act in ways that simply make you feel like a better person.  Its just seems like a more attractive form of moral hedonism based on the self-love generated by altrustic behavior.  Just like any pleasure seeking behavior; it becomes obsessive and addictive.


----------



## murphythecat

are you okay? 
 I dont lie, im a buddhist theravada and a buddhist for close to 6 years. Buddhism really helped me change my life around, ive listen to hundreds of talks from many different monks: ajahn chah, ajahn brahm, ayya khema just to name a few. Im a bit obsessed about the dharma actually, Ive given up on my girlfriend, on my friends, on music, on school and on practically everything I hold dear because I believe in the dharma, I will begin my first retreat in may and likely go from there. I plan to become a monk basically. I'm a bit scared of how hard it will be to detach myself as I live a very comfortable life, but I'm sure its the only way to happiness.. I practice mindfulness every day and try to purify me being the most I can.


turkalurk said:


> What is my will free from?  Ideas are rarely so absolute.  To me, freedom as an abolute with no reference to contrast it with, make  little sense.  I find it strange you call yourself a Theravada Buddhist.  It could but said that technically you are lying.  What kind of instruction have you had?


----------



## Ninae

Lol


----------



## murphythecat

indeed, you can only know and judge whats best for you.
things are much simpler when you only focus on you and judge your own actions and thoughts. we all have plenty to be mindful about in ourselves, no need to look outside of ourselves for contradictory and problems, theres enough within.
you the only one who can judge morally the actions you make and find your own solution.
however, having the intention to hurt another being is bad, hurtful and wrong for everybody who try to hurt someone else.





turkalurk said:


> I have given plenty of exahttp://www.bluelight.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12945514mples when things aren't that simple.  Its not always easy to know which way is the best way for all.  Maybe variation and diversity have their place in assuring survival.  If we were all the same we would only have one solution to every problem.
> 
> You seem to confirm my point about superficial morality and feeling morally superior because you act in ways that simply make you feel like better person.  Its just seems like a more attractive form of moral hedonism based on the self-love generated by altrustic behavior.  Just like any pleasure seeking behavior; it becomes obsessive and addictive.


----------



## turkalurk

Your version of that would be:  I think you take hallucinogens based on your body dysmorphic disorder.  A bit more offensive when an irrelevant assumption like that is present, eh?


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Im a bit obsessed about the dharma actually, Ive given up on my girlfriend, on my friends, on music, on school and on practically everything I hold dear because I believe in the dharma... I plan to become a monk basically... I'm sure its the only way to happiness.



That doesn't sound particularly healthy, to me...

I think it's weird that you can't comprehend that people can be happy without becoming monks or practicing Buddhism. Perhaps this is something that you need to do, but that doesn't mean that it's something that everybody needs to do... Buddhism isn't about the pursuit of happiness, by the way, so you may be disappointed if that's what you're looking for.

And, I'm sure you don't care, but I don't think it's working that well for you if you've been doing it obsessively for 6 years and you're still judging humanity and saying "fuck them" for eating meat... That doesn't sound Buddhist, at all... And, generally, you don't come across as a particularly calm individual (like most Buddhists I know).


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> indeed, you can only know and judge whats best for you.
> things are much simpler when you only focus on you and judge your own actions and thoughts. we all have plenty to be mindful about in ourselves, no need to look outside of ourselves for contradictory and problems, theres enough within.
> you the only one who can judge morally the actions you make and find your own solution.
> however, having the intention to hurt another being is bad, hurtful and wrong for everybody who try to hurt someone else.



I disagree, I am willingbto protect myself and go a step further in harming them enough to supply motivation for them to reconsider the consequences of their actions the next time they mistake a person's hesitance to fight for weakness.  Too many times I had to learn the lesson the hard way.  If you aren't willing to hurt someone trying to hurt you, you stand a very good chance of getting hurt.


----------



## murphythecat

Ive been just recently free from my weed use that eaten away 10 years of my clear headed life. kinda hard to practice and be stone. all I did was practice my morality. I used to be pretty mean and angry about the world.
I consider life fucking hard, unsatisfying, scary. I find Im not in control enough of my thoughts, my behavior and im very careful not to hurt people as I know it hurt me back. Im totally dispassionate about most things nowadays, see ignorance, pain, stress, worries and confusion all around me, not enough love and care, too much ego centered occupations, values and dont believe in happiness with our way of life. maybe take a minute and look around yourself, ask the real questions, and maybe you will see that people are as smart as you, the same as you and would benefit greatly from love and understanding.

sorry for having said fuck people who eat meat, that wasnt right but I still think there wrong doing it and that we have a serious responsibility toward what we decide to kill for our own gourmet pleasure.



ForEverAfter said:


> That doesn't sound particularly healthy, to me...
> 
> I think it's weird that you can't comprehend that people can be happy without becoming monks or practicing Buddhism. Perhaps this is something that you need to do, but that doesn't mean that it's something that everybody needs to do... Buddhism isn't about the pursuit of happiness, by the way, so you may be disappointed if that's what you're looking for.
> 
> And, I'm sure you don't care, but I don't think it's working that well for you if you've been doing it obsessively for 6 years and you're still judging humanity and saying "fuck them" for eating meat... That doesn't sound Buddhist, at all... And, generally, you don't come across as a particularly calm individual (like most Buddhists I know).


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Another get-out clause, this is getting silly. And try to post when you're sober enough that you can spell.



another ad honimen attack.  I thought this was about empathy and compassion?  Oh yeah, just another method of self gratification.  I like the efficiency of my style of writing.  I am more about substance rather than superficial errors in spelling and grammar attributed to a small touch screen phone, clumsy thumbs, no spell check, and a lack of proof-reading.  I guess for you its all about superficial appearances.  To you, how something looks on the outside seems more important to you and that makes you appear shallow to me.


----------



## turkalurk

turkalurk said:


> another ad honimen attack.  I thought this was about empathy and compassion?  Oh yeah, just another method of self gratification.  I like the efficiency of my style of writing.  I am more about substance rather than superficial errors in spelling and grammar attributed to a small touch screen phone, clumsy thumbs, no spell check, and a lack of proof-reading.  I guess for you its all about superficial appearances.  To you, how something looks on the outside seems more important to you and that makes you appear shallow to me.




Not that being shallow is always a bad thing.  It has its place to, I am shallow in my own ways.  

Btw, I still think you're cute!  No matter what you think of me!


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> are you okay?
> I dont lie, im a buddhist theravada and a buddhist for close to 6 years. Buddhism really helped me change my life around, ive listen to hundreds of talks from many different monks: ajahn chah, ajahn brahm, ayya khema just to name a few. Im a bit obsessed about the dharma actually, Ive given up on my girlfriend, on my friends, on music, on school and on practically everything I hold dear because I believe in the dharma, I will begin my first retreat in may and likely go from there. I plan to become a monk basically. I'm a bit scared of how hard it will be to detach myself as I live a very comfortable life, but I'm sure its the only way to happiness.. I practice mindfulness every day and try to purify me being the most I can.



I do think that you believe yourself to be one.  I just disagree that an actual Buddhist monk would read your posts and make any such determination.  You might identify as one, but that doesn't actaully make you one.  To be an actual Buddhist, requires interaction with an instructor.  Otherwise, you are simply following your ego's interpretation of it.   You label yourself as something, that your behavior and speech contradict.  I don't know your intentions, but calling yourself  theravada buddhist sure does seem deceptive to me.

Btw, u can continue to deflect the conversation with red herrings, but I have been graded on my logic and understanding.   I am very confident, because they have been verified by my high grade point average.  Its rare I didn't ace a class.  I have had a few classes that discussed Buddhism.    I am a very big fan of Taoism, which influenced Buddhist thought.  I just disagree with your interpretation of Buddhism, and trust my instructors understanding of it over your personal opinion.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> Btw, u can continue to deflect the conversation with red herrings, but I have been graded on my logic and understanding. I am very confident, because they have been verified by my high grade point average. Its rare I didn't ace a class.





			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> And try to post when you're sober enough that you can spell.





			
				ForEverAfter said:
			
		

> Dude, you're drunk.
> You can hardly type.



Look, guys: none of this bullshit is pushing forward discussion at all.  Feel free to hassle each other through PM, if you must, but know that this banter is entirely irrelevant to any substantive issues we might engage.  If you don't have anything to say beyond this, you don't really have anything to say. . .

ebola


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> Willow, you mentioned being interested in alternatives, but did you read that link I posted on the lab grown burgers?  I have provided a healthy compromise and not one of you has commented on it.  DOES IT NOT EXCITE YOU TO BE IN THE MIDST OF PROGRESS?



Sorry Turk, I missed it. I don't like the idea of lab-grown meat and I think its irrelevant to the heart of this discussion. Obviously, I would have no ethical problems with consuming it. 

My issue, to state it again for the trillionth time, is with 2 main things; 1) the cruelty of keeping another lifeform imprisoned in awful conditions only to be killed and be eaten by people ; 2) the destruction of the environment to maintain current western obsession with eating meat daily. Lab-grown meat would obviously negate much of this. I can't see most people eating it, particularly those in the west who think its reasonable to eat meat everyday. 




ebola? said:


> Look, guys: none of this bullshit is pushing forward discussion at all.  Feel free to hassle each other through PM, if you must, but know that this banter is entirely irrelevant to any substantive issues we might engage.  If you don't have anything to say beyond this, you don't really have anything to say. . .
> 
> ebola



I sort of agree that the more personal stuff should be avoided, but I must say that I am quite pleased at how engaging this thread has become. 

I've certainly learned something from this.


----------



## sekio

> My issue, to state it again for the trillionth time, is with 2 main things; 1) the cruelty of keeping another lifeform imprisoned in awful conditions only to be killed and be eaten by people ; 2) the destruction of the environment to maintain current western obsession with eating meat daily. Lab-grown meat would obviously negate much of this. I can't see most people eating it, particularly those in the west who think its reasonable to eat meat everyday.



Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but doesn't it follow from those points that the only reason most Westerners eat meat is because they subconciously enjoy destroying the ecosystem?
It seems to me that a lot of people honestly do not concern themselves with where their meat comes from, only that it is tasty and pleasing to the senses. If we advance to the point of making lab-meat that is equivalent in taste and texture to Wagu beef in blind testing, do you really think people would care that their meat comes from a nutrient tank and not a blood-soaked abattoir instead? 

I have a lot of faith in the marketing departments of major food producers.  If they can market the American consumer a soft, malleable dairy-flavored cellulosic plastic colored with tartrazine and Red 40 as "cheese", I'm very sure they can turn lab-grown meat into at least a consumer product, if not a delicacy.

Disclaimer: I am a filthy animal subjugator who enjoys eating things like hotdogs. (cue gasps of horror from the audience)

Oh, also, thought experiment: If we could grow meat-producing cattle without a functional brain, would that be animal cruelty? Would it still be a 'cow'? If so, how much of the cow must you remove before it's lab grown "meat" and not an animal?

(Bonus question: Why don't people have issue with subjugating bacteria and yeasts to do our dirty work... and then slaughtering them wholesale by consuming them?)


----------



## socko

sekio said:


> Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but doesn't it follow from those points that the only reason most Westerners eat meat is because they subconciously enjoy destroying the ecosystem?...
> 
> (Bonus question: Why don't people have issue with subjugating bacteria and yeasts to do our dirty work... and then slaughtering them wholesale by consuming them?)


Not just Westerners. I can think of at least one Eastern country of more than 1 billion who enjoys destroying endangered species.  The culture values eating the penis of endangered tigers and rhinos, parfly for the purpose of folk magic. They eat cats and dogs too. For some, the more the animal was made to suffer when slaughtering it, the more potent is the effect of the folk magic.


----------



## Ninae

A bacteria doesn't have any more consciousness than a plant. It might move, but no. A tree has a great consciousness in comparison to that. But organisms on that level are like drone-lifeforms keeping the rest of us alive, really, as are plants in a way. But animals close to us in consciousness don't need to be.

And before someone says they're not worthy of a better life than plants/bacteria, are we not worthy of a better life than flies/spiders? You will say that is completely different but it's not really. The spirit and energy-system within is larger and more sentient too and the consciousness within relates to the form in this world in some way.


----------



## Erikmen

Very interesting, although I see the point of Sekio's observations. People in general are interested in taste, bran and quality IMO.


----------



## swilow

You guys should read the book Under The Skin by Michael Faber (please ignore the utter shitness that was the film). There are many themes, with factory farming, exploitation and evidence of consciousness as major themes. Also, it is written brilliantly.



sekio said:


> Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but doesn't it follow from those points that the only reason most Westerners eat meat is because they subconciously enjoy destroying the ecosystem?
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of people honestly do not concern themselves with where their meat comes from, only that it is tasty and pleasing to the senses. If we advance to the point of making lab-meat that is equivalent in taste and texture to Wagu beef in blind testing, do you really think people would care that their meat comes from a nutrient tank and not a blood-soaked abattoir instead?



-No, I don't think that meat-eating masks a subconscious desire to destroy the environment. I think that is a pretty big and slightly odd conclusion to draw. As you went on to mention, I don't think most people really think about it. They might think briefly about the sadness of factory farms and slaughterhouses but there is a pretty wide and planned disconnect between what we eat and reality. When we eat a cow, we call it beef. When we eat a pig, we call it pork or bacon. When we eat chicken's legs, we call them drumsticks. When we eat a young cow, we call it veal. Deer is venison when being eaten. I think that people are aware of how uncomfortable eating meat makes them and so they create a disonnect between reality and dinner. Of course, I am making the assumption that I know what the majority thinks, and of course I can't know that. The destruction of the environment happens 'over there' so people tend to think it isn't actually happening. 

-Again, I can't speak for all people, but I really can imagine some resistance to lab-grown meat. With that said, I would support it as I think it has multiple benefits, but I cannot see lab grown meat entirely replacing factory grown meats. Lab-grown meat represents a small and insignificant solution to the global problem of over-eating meat. 

-I think the reason most people eat meat is because it is there and we are told it is food. It actually doesn't need to be, but many are unaware that there are alternative, or they are unwilling to go without. I mean, meat-eating is natural and easily justified, but not the way the majority do it IMO.




> Disclaimer: I am a filthy animal subjugator who enjoys eating things like hotdogs. (cue gasps of horror from the audience)



The way hot dogs are farmed is deplorable. I don't understand why you would want to kill such vibrant scarlet abominations. You evil manipulator of sausage you 



> Oh, also, thought experiment: If we could grow meat-producing cattle without a functional brain, would that be animal cruelty? Would it still be a 'cow'? If so, how much of the cow must you remove before it's lab grown "meat" and not an animal?



Hmm. Have a sail on my/theirs/his/the Ship of Theseus.. Or the replica, either/either.

I think a brain is the first requirment for suffering, though jellyfish may beg to differ. I think that creating an animal without a brain is exploitative in the first place and I find it distasteful but I can't exactly identify why. 



> (Bonus question: Why don't people have issue with subjugating bacteria and yeasts to do our dirty work... and then slaughtering them wholesale by consuming them?)



We've already explored this; don't tell me you haven't read all 30 pages and taken notes again?   

Life appears to be hierarchical, though that could very well be arbitrary. I certainly feel I have more in common with a kangaroo then I do a snake, and a snake then I do a snail and a snail then I do a bacterial-foam. I don't think that bacteria can really suffer; but I, and no-one really, can know this. I assume that their simple physical structure precludes sufferring. I think that snails can suffer, but their suffering is 'less' then the snake, due to the snakes more developed nervous system. Again, this is an assumption. I would sooner kill a kangaroo then a human, because I feel that the death of a human entails more 'loss' and therefore more suffering. The more advanced the physiology of a creature, the more aware it may be and the more suffering it may experience. Again, subjectivity and anthropomorphism at its best, but in this realm, one cannot be objective.

Yeasts on the other hand- kill them all I say. 

:D


----------



## turkalurk

for Willow:


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms



> "Then someone came up with the idea of urban farming and local farming," explains van der Weele. "All of these problems disappeared and they thought it too good to be true. We have meat and good relations with animals -- it's the opposite of alienating food." It makes perfect sense. So many people are disillusioned with our relationship with food today, it has already given rise to the popularity of urban farming and projects like Five Mile Food.
> 
> In the paper van der Weele and her co-author explain: "A cultured meat scenario that generated not ambivalence but great enthusiasm among workshop participants was one in which pigs in backyards or animal-friendly (urban) farms would serve as the living donors of muscle stem cells through biopsies. These pigs live happy lives as companion animals while their cells are cultured in local meat factories. Worries of cultured meat being unnatural, too technological, or alienating were absent here; the idea of local production and close contact with the animals seemed to dispel these concerns."
> 
> The paper goes on to describe a hypothesis for the urban farm, with animal cells cultured in suspension in bioreactors just 20m2. "In principle it is possible to grow animal muscle or organ cells in suspension on that scale for meat production, provided that a robust continuous cell line is available."
> 
> It's all a bit of a utopian ideal (aside from the whole pigs grown in jars, being watced by pigs in pens, bit), whereby we get a chance to do everything over, and do it right this time. Farming was always at the heart of communities before industrialisation took over. This would take us back to those days, to an extent.


----------



## Journyman16

ForEverAfter said:


> Since quantum field mechanics proves that there are multiple possible outcomes to every situation…, it seems that - perhaps - our decisions dictate whether or not we travel in one direction or another... I'm not entirely convinced of this, but I don't think you can say that the entire field of physics indicates that we don't have free will.


See, that statement about ‘quantum field mechanics’ is an absolute. We don’t even know that quantum field mechanics is anything more than just another approximation or even just fantasy.
My statement was…


			
				Journyman16 said:
			
		

> Well it is debatable (in a literal sense) as to whether we actually have free will. Physics tends towards the 'No' response.


 ‘tends towards’ is a FAR less absolute statement and comes from several DIFFERENT branches of physics.


ForEverAfter said:


> You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.
> 
> 
> I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.


And whether you admit it or not, this is sarcastic in intent. Particularly given our previous history. It is belittling in nature and clearly is about ME and not the subject.




ForEverAfter said:


> Journeyman,
> 
> I'm a little tired of trying to explain the mythological functionality of the Garden of Eden to you.
> You appear intent on misinterpreting it... and, I can only speculate as to why this is so.


Then perhaps you should pause a moment and realise you are NOT the be-all and end-all of Christian beliefs. I can only speculate as to why you think your personal beliefs are so much better than everyone else's.

You might note there are a number of 'IF's' in my comments which show a lack of dogmatism. Unfortunately for your beliefs, most Christians do NOT believe as you do and many think the Garden is quite literally a factual story. Your beliefs as to the matter are no more based in reality than theirs. :D 


			
				Journyman16 said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways - *IF* God made us like this then our acts are entirely both natural AND his fault, not ours. Because *IF* God made us and the Garden myth is some kind of truth, God DIDN'T make us to question what we are and should be doing - in fact we got kicked out of the Garden for STEALING that ability.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Physics does not tend towards the idea that we don't have free will. I wasn't being sarcastic, and my comment about the Garden of Eden wasn't a response to the passage that you quoted at the bottom of your post... I don't think my personal beliefs are "so much better" than _anyone_ else, let alone everyone. The Garden of Eden is quite easy to understand... I'm tired of trying to explain it; I'm not interested in arguing with you.


----------



## swilow

J-man, I think that a persons ideological history is important when having a discussion. The subject is not irrelevant really. If you read a newspaper, you actually gain more from it if you know the context and pursuasions of the author; you can read between the lines. 

With that said, I don't think one should be dismissed because of previous comments one has made, but I don't think that's happening here. 

Different strokes. 



turkalurk said:


> for Willow:
> 
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms



Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this? 

For a very ideological subject, I think we've all been good up until recently in being repectful and thoughtful. I know that I sometimes come across more agressively or firmly then I wish, and I think I've been trying to logically trip some people up which isn't exactly fair. I apologise if I have done so. 

But I have learned through this topic and plan to begin eating living puppies from tomorrow.


----------



## Journyman16

@Willow11 - I totally agree. But if ideology is anything, it is a personal view. To use it as a weapon against another is to indulge in religious war - my belief is right and yours is wrong. But it is belief. It is NOT fact. Quantum mechanics is simply an idea - it might be right or it might not and like string theory, nobopdy has yet thought of a way to test it, nor even come up with a hypothetical way it COULD be tested. 

So claiming an untested idea 'proves' anything is pure belief.

The garden of Eden thing is believed by an overwhelming number of Christians to be truth. FEA holds a different belief, but he also claims to not be Christian. His belief is no more or less real than those who think the story is factual. If he had a different attitude, we might even be in agreement, but his dogmatism means we are on opposite ends of the belief line... he believes while I merely find it merely an interesting datum.

The facts are, the story comes from elsewhere - we know that because of dates. The Hyksos were simply not early enough to have had the 'original' creation myth and other tales told in the bible make it clear when the leaders of the Hyksos were inventing the Hebrews, they borrowed from right, left and centre.

So declaring he and he alone 'knows' what the biblical Eden story means is, at best braggadocio.

Then there is the way he likes to post about the person rather than the subject. (and yes I appreciate the irony of what I am doing here, but I claim it started with him and to hold my position I do need to talk about his actions - you might note I make no claims about his personal position, careers or lack thereof - :D ) It is not debate to target the person, it is tricks designed to cover the fact the person doing it has no response worth posting.

So while I have few issues discussing almost anything, a post that targets me personally draws appropriate response. It is not respectful to post about the person instead of the topic. 

@FEA - actually physics DOES tend towards no free will. Relativity implies it. Information Theory implies it. The equations for Time imply it. The SMC implies it. When you get into physics beyond the MSM versions, there are no conditions normally found that favour a single direction in time and Physics as a subject, right now, is trying to understand WHY we have an 'arrow of time' and the Universe moves only in one direction. Free will as a given is a religious concept and used to promote guilt by the Church. But the Eden story tells us the guilt, if any, belongs to God, not us. We were innocent until we 'failed' a test he brags he knew we had to fail because he knows beginning from end.

Again, you can't have it both ways - either God knows all and created Man in full knowledge he would fail the test, or he is not God but some guy in a lab who didn't know the end results.

And yes, I know you views that nothing about creation is real but you are outnumbered millions to one. Deal with it.

And if God is real, he made us to eat meat. Our teeth AND our guts tell us that. He also made us to eat vegetables. Our teeth and our guts tell us that also. He didn't make us to eat grass. Our teeth and our guts tell us that also and one thing more - we apparently spent a lot of time eating [produce beside aquifers of some kind because of the ridges we have on our teeth. Strangely the Garden myth doesn't mention a lake or shallow sea... I wonder why?

And... back to the topic...

The teeth and gut story also tell us, even if there is NO god to create us, we are OMNIVORES - Nature designed us to eat meat and veg. Evolution says we are specifically designed NOT to be veggie eaters NOR carnivores. Any other such consideration is purely an intellectual exercise.

And deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.


----------



## Journyman16

willow11 said:


> Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this?


If you mean me about the lab meat site, I have no particular issues. (I'm figuring you mean the original poster, not me...) Mind you if they get Monsanto to do it, I will wait to see who dies before I try it. :D


----------



## ForEverAfter

> So declaring he and he alone 'knows' what the biblical Eden story means is, at best braggadocio.



Never made that declaration, in this or any other thread.



> See, that statement about ‘quantum field mechanics’ is an absolute.



Proof is not absolute.



> a post that targets me personally draws appropriate response. It is not respectful to post about the person instead of the topic.



I didn't target you. I responded to what you said, because I think it's wrong.
And, you've posted more about me than I have about you in this thread...
So, maybe you should take your own advice.



> actually physics DOES tend towards no free will.



Okay, buddy... sure it does.

Like I said, I don't want to have another pseudo-scientific discussion with you, where you make claims in the name of science. You're not explaining how the entire field of physics "tends" towards there being free will, you're just listing out theories that you think imply it without making any effort to explain why or how they imply it... This is not a discussion I am interested in having.

Let's return to the topic at hand.



> deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.



There are lots of natural things that you don't indulge in, presumably.
People keep saying that it's natural to eat meat.
But, it's natural to do all sorts of "wrong" things.
Isn't it?


----------



## Journyman16

ForEverAfter said:


> Never made that declaration, in this or any other thread.


Yeah... Except for telling us all how tired you are of telling me the real meaning of a myth you cannot possibly actually know for sure the truth about...? That's just semantics and not the first time you have claimed such knowledge either.


ForEverAfter said:


> Proof is not absolute.


Yeah, actually it is. If I prove something that means there is no doubt. You claim an idea about which physicists are still debating and have yet to find any way to determine a result 'proves' something is you declaring an absolute. And it just ain't so. It turns out YOU are the one making up stuff about what Physics can or can't tell us. :D Maybe the 'pseudo' in your comment is because that is your level of basic Science understanding? 

Science doesn't 'prove' anything until it is indisputable - maybe Religion is sufficient for others but we are talking Science here.


ForEverAfter said:


> I didn't target you. I responded to what you said, because I think it's wrong.
> And, you've posted more about me than I have about you in this thread...
> So, maybe you should take your own advice.[.quote]Yeah, actually you did. I posted a response to Ninae and you dove right in with...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.
> 
> I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess by your ideas of who is allowed to say what, you should maybe stop talking about science, physics, diet, bible, history, and anything else you are not qualified and experienced in? Unless, of course, you ARE a chemist, cosmologist, physicist, dietician, biblical scholar, Jewish Rabbi, historian etc? If so I humbly apologise.
> 
> If not, stop telling people what they are allowed to talk about and how only you know what the Garden of Eden was. THEN we can have a discussion about things.
> 
> 
> ForEverAfter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of natural things that you don't indulge in, presumably.
> People keep saying that it's natural to eat meat.
> But, it's natural to do all sorts of "wrong" things.
> Isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be curious as to what 'natural' things you think people do not indulge in. If it isn't too revealing personally, I mean... :D
> 
> Then there is the question of whether it is at all possible for 'natural' creatures such as human to actually do ANYTHING unnatural. By definition, everything we do is natural.
> 
> Unless of course you are claiming humans aren't 'natural'? :D
Click to expand...


----------



## ForEverAfter

If scientific proof is absolute, then how are theories disproved? Disproof is, what, not part of science - according to you? ... I think you know what I meant, and you're just being weirdly (and antagonistically) pedantic about my use of the word proof... Nothing can be proved, really, in any field. So - what - do you object to the word proof being used across the board?



> If I prove something that means there is no doubt.



Show me: prove something (non mathematical).



> You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.
> 
> I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.



How in the living fuck is that an attack?



> If not, stop telling people what they are allowed to talk about and how only you know what the Garden of Eden was.



I've never done either of those things, so I don't see how I can stop.



> Then there is the question of whether it is at all possible for 'natural' creatures such as human to actually do ANYTHING unnatural. By definition, everything we do is natural.
> 
> Unless of course you are claiming humans aren't 'natural'?



You're contradicting yourself:



			
				Jman said:
			
		

> And deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.



I never said anything - in particular - was "natural" or "unnatural": that is what I was objecting to... You suggested that being a vegetarian is "unnatural" - because of teeth, etc - which doesn't make sense, considering how far removed we are from our biological origins...

If you want to separate things into natural and unnatural (which you did, by labeling vegetarianism "unnatural") then shouldn't you be utterly natural? Eating meat is "natural", according to our teeth, etc, but only certain kinds of meat. We tenderize and consume meat that we wouldn't be able to take down without technology or pierce their hides with our teeth. Eating shit is "natural". Eating placenta is "natural". I assume you don't do either of those things?

If not eating meat is "unnatural", is it "unnatural" to drive a car or use a computer?


----------



## LuGoJ

Ninae said:


> I don't judge non-vegetarians like you do, Murphy. That way you'd have to judge everyone you meet and humanity as a whole and it just doesn't work in the long run. But I've also been vegetarian for a long time and you just can't do it that way.
> 
> I don't interefere with how other people live in any way and I sure can't be bothered starting that argument with many. But it can get to me when people start talking down to vegetarians and try to make themselves come accross as superior as there are no grounds for that. But it's like they see your existence as an implied judgement on themselves and want to get there first before you have the chance to say anything. It's annoying, but I don't see much of that in real life, except for people who are extremely aggressive about making their own way of life seen as the best.
> 
> Apart from that, it's just one of the ugly sides of life I don't like to think about much, so I try not to think about it. If you were to think about the conditions of animals in this world all the time, like the fur industry, it would drive you insane. But that is how people generally live with eating meat, aswell, by not thinking about what they're really doing, and most find it very unpleasent to be reminded as well.



^This x100. 

One can only lead by example and hope that others follow. What other people do should have no bearing on one's ability to enjoy life. A lot of people make it their personal crusade to change everyone around them which is impossible and will ultimately lead to disappointment and frustration. People become defensive when they think others are trying to tell them how to live their lives and are generally less receptive to new ideas when it's framed in such a way(or when they believe it is), right or wrong. It's hard to accomplish much of anything when people are defense mode.


----------



## Mysterie

i reduced the amount i ate meat quite a bit for the past 6 months, i will avoid eating meat whenever i have the choice. but i am slightly reconsidering my position on that now that i have got my blood work back and i was deficient in B12. i have started brewing kombucha which is supposed to contain B12, so i might be able to supplement somewhat with fermented foods, but i'm getting the IM injection every week for a few weeks anyway.

i think a debate between FEA and jman might break the internet 

@murphycat

buddhism is more than a morality trip tbh, it seems like a lot of people get a small amount of insight and they suddenly think they are above everyone else.


----------



## murphythecat

Mysterie said:


> @murphycat
> 
> buddhism is more than a morality trip tbh, it seems like a lot of people get a small amount of insight and they suddenly think they are above everyone else.


fascinating!


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> J-man, I think that a persons ideological history is important when having a discussion. The subject is not irrelevant really. If you read a newspaper, you actually gain more from it if you know the context and pursuasions of the author; you can read between the lines.
> 
> With that said, I don't think one should be dismissed because of previous comments one has made, but I don't think that's happening here.
> 
> Different strokes.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this?
> 
> For a very ideological subject, I think we've all been good up until recently in being repectful and thoughtful. I know that I sometimes come across more agressively or firmly then I wish, and I think I've been trying to logically trip some people up which isn't exactly fair. I apologise if I have done so.
> 
> But I have learned through this topic and plan to begin eating living puppies from tomorrow.



I feel like you have barely read my contributions to this discussion.  Yet, you have commented on so much of what you think my point has been.  I feel like summarizing it all for you, but its in my post history, if you were genuinely interested in the alternatives ways of thinking as you mentioned in your OP, then you would have read all the contributions made on your thread.  Personally, if I had made a thread like this, I would feel an obligation to read any post making a genuine effort to answer my OP.   Especially, if I were to engage any of their posts.  I certainly wouldn't engage someone in my own thread, without reading everything they wrote in my thread.


----------



## Journyman16

Last night I watched 'Forks Over Knives' a doco about 2 US doctors who separately came to a 'whol;e plant foods' view - both had grown up on farms so their research led them to views almost polar opposite to their upbringing. The doco is well worth a watch as they follow how the 2 came to the conclusion that many cancers are linked to animal products, even milk and eggs.

Where it fell down for me is there was not enough details to justify their stance, and not even enough evidence that they TRIED to do a systematic investigation - they might be dead right in their conclusions but it is almost impossible to know from what was presented.

For example - the amin evidence for one was his patients - I think it was 25 top begin with and some dropped out, leaving 14 at the end. All showed significant improvement in measures such as LDL's CRP's and more. But... and it is a big but... we are not told what their diet was before, and they are a select group of people who were sick when they started the program of plant foods. It may be they could have gone onto a diet of wild fish and organic beef and got the same improvements.

Another issue for me was they demonised animal fats, all of them, something which recent research has shown to be wrong if the fats come from healthy and non-chemical'd livestock. Omega 3 from fish is extremely good for us, but you wouldn't think it from this show.

Opposed to that is sugars came very close to getting a free ride - they are mentioned as a bit of a problem but it clearly considered a minor issue compared to animal products - and yet other evidence shows sugar is a major killer and cause of billions spent in palliative and intervention care.

Also the program is quite positive about adding grains to our diet, something research is showing more and more as a problem. We can actually live without carbs because our bodies are designed to convert fats to energy, and the increasing research into the effects of grain, even whole grains, is showing the amount of them we eat is a major problem.

So yes, it has made me rethink a few of my attitudes but certainly not to the conversion to pure vegan level.


----------



## Journyman16

Mysterie said:


> i think a debate between FEA and jman might break the internet












*grins* Probably... and we can't have that. :D


----------



## What 23

The consumption of meat, and correlated rate of cancer, may be due to the way it is cooked, also. The high heat perhaps. This at least is part of it. 

Red meat may also carry more risk. I'm not sure. I don't have a specific reference in my head just what has hit the panel there enough times to light it up there. I could be wrong, of course.


----------



## Journyman16

Probably not on topic but related to the heat - possibly the ultimate way to cook any food, but particularly meat - sous vide. I bought an Anova unit a few months back and the food is insanely good. Veggies come out perfect every time, salmon steaks are meltingly tender all the way through and even cheap cuts like chuck steak come out so tender you can use a bread knife to cut them.

And it is impossible to overcook anything - no more mushy cabbage or waterlogged carrots. :D

I have beef ribs in at the moment, cooking for 30 hours (tomorrow night's meal)


----------



## What 23

Sounds good/sounds interesting. I read the plastic used is non-leach, but I would need to research more. I try to avoid plastic. Do you notice any plastic taste?


----------



## Journyman16

What 23 said:


> Sounds good/sounds interesting. I read the plastic used is non-leach, but I would need to research more. I try to avoid plastic. Do you notice any plastic taste?


Not in the slightest. The water temps are too low for any issues with food grade bags. I wouldn't try cling wrap though... :D

A perfect medium rare steak cooks around 57ºC (134.6ºF) chicken is a bit warmer at ~63ºC and fish is lower. (about 52ºC for medium rare fillets) Hard veggies are hotter at around 85ºC. So pretty much anything rated for boiling water temps is fine to cook in. I vac-pack mine but you can by sealable bags and immerse in water to remove the air before sealing them.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> I feel like you have barely read my contributions to this discussion.  Yet, you have commented on so much of what you think my point has been.  I feel like summarizing it all for you, but its in my post history, if you were genuinely interested in the alternatives ways of thinking as you mentioned in your OP, then you would have read all the contributions made on your thread.  Personally, if I had made a thread like this, I would feel an obligation to read any post making a genuine effort to answer my OP.   Especially, if I were to engage any of their posts.  I certainly wouldn't engage someone in my own thread, without reading everything they wrote in my thread.



1) I am not leading this discussion just because I started it. I'm not sure why you think I am obliged to read and respond to every contribution. I don't have the time for that, but I did try to express my appreciation to all participants, yourself included.
2) How do you know that I haven't read all of it? You are assuming that (correctly as it were) Of course, IF you were to start a topic, you WOULD do things differently. Cool man.
3) The fact is that you were unclear in your points, so I tried to pick those that made sense to me to discuss. It is not my fault if you changed your arguments several times or were unable to coherently convey it.
4) Earlier you felt that I was responding only to you- you said as much to me- so I worried that I was hectoring you so I backed off. I picked the things in your comments that interested me to discuss with you. That is how it goes. I don't have the inclination or the time to try and figure out your own arguments when other people here are expressing their's in a clearer manner.

If I've bothered you, I'm sorry, but its really your own problem. I tried to engage with you above and you just went on a small rant, so I'm giving up.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> 1) I am not leading this discussion just because I started it. I'm not sure why you think I am obliged to read and respond to every contribution. I don't have the time for that, but I did try to express my appreciation to all participants, yourself included.  *strawman, never said you had to respond to every contribution.  I said if you were going to engage someone somewhere in the midst of an argument on your thread, you should feel obliged to read their entire argument before replying with a rebuttal that inaccurately assumes what their argument is.  You don't have time to read through my arguments, but you expect me to take the time to repeat myself.  What happened to empathy?*
> 2) How do you know that I haven't read all of it? You are assuming that (correctly as it were) Of course, IF you were to start a topic, you WOULD do things differently. Cool man.* You said as much, and the questions and responses indicate either a misinterpretation or ignorance. *
> 3) The fact is that you were unclear in your points, so I tried to pick those that made sense to me to discuss. It is not my fault if you changed your arguments several times or were unable to coherently convey it.*  or maybe you were just unable or unwilling to follow it.  Basically, a peson who claims to follow deep ecology wouldn't need to question the relevancy and significance of an eco-friendly solution to the food industry.  Especially someone who claims to be interested in alternatives to vegetarianism.*
> 4) Earlier you felt that I was responding only to you- you said as much to me- so I worried that I was hectoring you so I backed off. *Again, you have an uncanny ability to misinterpret my words.  I never said any such thing.  I have said that you seem to respond to my posts as if I were talking to you, and trying to apply my criticisms of murphy's arguments to your own beliefs as if I were directing my comments at you.* I picked the things in your comments that interested me to discuss with you. That is how it goes. I don't have the inclination or the time to try and figure out your own arguments when other people here are expressing their's in a clearer manner.
> 
> If I've bothered you, I'm sorry, but its really your own problem. I tried to engage with you above and you just went on a small rant, so I'm giving up.



I don't care what you do.  I would actually rather you not comments  at all then to continue this campaign of having to clarify your misinterpretations and argue against someone who admits he hasn't read the whole argument, but expcts me to keep repeating myself everytime he wants to makes an uninformed comment.  It would be different if you have read my posts and didn't understand, but it is your thread and this is supposed to be important to you. So, I basically lost interest in debating with you pages ago when you admitted not reading my posts.
I am sorry you want to step onto a moral high horse and write such a thread announcing how great your moral fiber is, but are unwilling to be bothered reading an entire argument before engaging it with fallacious rebuttals.  Like I said, it all just seems like superficial hedonistic ethics.  None of you care about actual solutions, that doesn't produce enough altruistic high of self love.  Anyone can eat lab meat, but it takes conviction to give meat up entirely.  Lets forget about how the mass production of vegetables can be just as harmful to the environment as a whole which is the basic premise of deep ecology.  Not less harm for animals, but life as a whole!   So, by downplaying the significance of lab meat, you reinforce my point about the moral high horse.  Is more important to feel good about yourself, than it does to actually do the right thing for the world as a whole.  Its all about self gratification of the ego and reinforcing feelings of superiority.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> I don't care what you do.  I would actually rather you not comments  at all then to continue this campaign of having to clarify your misinterpretations and argue against someone who admits he hasn't read the whole argument, but expcts me to keep repeating myself everytime he wants to makes an uninformed comment.  It would be different if you have read my posts and didn't understand, but it is your thread and this is supposed to be important to you. So, I basically lost interest in debating with you pages ago when you admitted not reading my posts.
> I am sorry you want to step onto a moral high horse and write such a thread announcing how great your moral fiber is, but are unwilling to be bothered reading an entire argument before engaging it with fallacious rebuttals.  Like I said, it all just seems like superficial hedonistic ethics.  None of you care about actual solutions, that doesn't produce enough altruistic high of self love.  Anyone can eat lab meat, but it takes conviction to give meat up entirely. * Lets forget about how the mass production of vegetables can be just as harmful to the environment as a whole which is the basic premise of deep ecology*.  Not less harm for animals, but life as a whole!   So, by downplaying the significance of lab meat, you reinforce my point about the moral high horse.  Is more important to feel good about yourself, than it does to actually do the right thing for the world as a whole.  Its all about self gratification of the ego and reinforcing feelings of superiority.


simply false.
make your research. farm meat are much worse for the environments then vegetable farms
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2...d-i-eat-meat-how-to-feed-the-planet_lifestyle

get your facts straight because your arguments, ive read all your post, arent facts but assumption from your parts.

as for people who try to convince themselves that they need meat in their diet, heres some interesting read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Healt...arian-Diets/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmr...tralian_dietary_guidelines_summary_130530.pdf
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446
http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/...9/k.2F6C/Healthy_living__Vegetarian_diets.htm

that said, lab grown meat is very promising imo


----------



## Ninae

willow11 said:


> If I've bothered you, I'm sorry, but its really your own problem. I tried to engage with you above and you just went on a small rant, so I'm giving up.



I think he's more about teasing and making fun of vegetarians than relating to it in a serious/sober way.


----------



## Xorkoth

turkalurk said:


> I don't care what you do.  I would actually rather you not comments  at all then to continue this campaign of having to clarify your misinterpretations and argue against someone who admits he hasn't read the whole argument, but expcts me to keep repeating myself everytime he wants to makes an uninformed comment.  It would be different if you have read my posts and didn't understand, but it is your thread and this is supposed to be important to you. So, I basically lost interest in debating with you pages ago when you admitted not reading my posts.
> I am sorry you want to step onto a moral high horse and write such a thread announcing how great your moral fiber is, but are unwilling to be bothered reading an entire argument before engaging it with fallacious rebuttals.  Like I said, it all just seems like superficial hedonistic ethics.  None of you care about actual solutions, that doesn't produce enough altruistic high of self love.  Anyone can eat lab meat, but it takes conviction to give meat up entirely.  Lets forget about how the mass production of vegetables can be just as harmful to the environment as a whole which is the basic premise of deep ecology.  Not less harm for animals, but life as a whole!   So, by downplaying the significance of lab meat, you reinforce my point about the moral high horse.  Is more important to feel good about yourself, than it does to actually do the right thing for the world as a whole.  Its all about self gratification of the ego and reinforcing feelings of superiority.



What makes you say no one in this thread cares about real solutions?  Plenty of people have responded in this thread without ego.  I also don't really see how willow has been on a high horse or full of ego about this.  Some in this thread, yes, absolutely.

What makes this thread a bummer to read (and a lot of threads in this forum eventually go this route) is the constant back and forth bickering about one's position and one's interpretation of how another has responded (not to mention the personal attacks, which is not happening here).  It would be better if we could have constructive conversation.  Which was happening for quite a bit of this thread.  All the back and forth bickering is tiring.


----------



## ebola?

How about this:

in order to have the kind of meaningful exchange where people could actually potentially learn from one another, it is necessary to hold a series of charitable assumptions about one's discussants, namely that they are willing to validly attempt to understand the views put forth and that their primary motive for exploring these views is pursuit of truth.  Simply launching a meta-discursive attack undermines these assumptions regardless of whether they truly have been violated.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> simply false.
> make your research. farm meat are much worse for the environments then vegetable farms
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2...d-i-eat-meat-how-to-feed-the-planet_lifestyle
> 
> get your facts straight because your arguments, ive read all your post, arent facts but assumption from your parts.
> 
> as for people who try to convince themselves that they need meat in their diet, heres some interesting read:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
> http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Healt...arian-Diets/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx
> http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx
> http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition
> http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html
> http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmr...tralian_dietary_guidelines_summary_130530.pdf
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446
> http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/...9/k.2F6C/Healthy_living__Vegetarian_diets.htm
> 
> that said, lab grown meat is very promising imo



something isn't simply false because you say it is.  Something isn't fact because yo say it is.  I did not claim eating solely meat or solely vegatables was best for the environment, which is worse is debatable and mostly a matter of perspective.  However, the ecofriendly lab meat shows much more promise as you have agreed with.  The fact that williw dismisses its significance illustrates my point about, for many, its about the superficial appearance of doing what makes them feel good about themselves and not about what is best for the world as a whole.

Furthermore, I find it odd how many of the vegetarians have expressed a lack of ability to empathize with their opposition which contradicts their claims of being these uber-compassionate people, and reinforces my criticism of the underlying smug narcissism motivating their behavior.


----------



## swilow

You're making assumptions that are wrong and would be offensive if they had any substance. Just drop it Turk.


----------



## turkalurk

Xorkoth said:


> What makes you say no one in this thread cares about real solutions?  Plenty of people have responded in this thread without ego.  I also don't really see how willow has been on a high horse or full of ego about this.  Some in this thread, yes, absolutely.
> 
> What makes this thread a bummer to read (and a lot of threads in this forum eventually go this route) is the constant back and forth bickering about one's position and one's interpretation of how another has responded (not to mention the personal attacks, which is not happening here).  It would be better if we could have constructive conversation.  Which was happening for quite a bit of this thread.  All the back and forth bickering is tiring.



I didn't mean a general "you," I meant specifically those vegetarians who have downplayed, undermined, or seem uninterested in a compromising solution and would rather ignore how something like this could change the game completely.  Sorry for not making that clearer, I did not meant to point a finger at everyone.  Yes, at first, I didn't think Willow was one either.  It's only the recent discussions that have provided enough context to read between the lines of his opening remarks and the implications of even posting a thread like this.  Personally, if I put myself in his shoes, I would not have titled it 
"ethical" lifestyle choices if I didn't want to imply that it was an ethical decision to become a vegatarian and not a preference of lifestyle and what is best fo oneself.  An ethical lifestyle choice implies what is best for society as a whole.  

you would think Murphy could relate to the wu wei philosophy of focusing on controlling the natural flow of your own personal choices and letting Humanity grow through its experiences as a whole rather than by your personal actions and efforts to gain control over what happens in your world.  

We are all just human.  I am glad we have people out there taking up an activist stance and fighting for what they think is right.  But, I also appreciate those who scrutinize every position from every angle possible in an attempt to look at things as obiectively as possible in order to get as close to truth as possible.  

To me, God=Truth=Objective Reality.  A relationship with God is about understanding our allusive relationship with Truth.  Sometimes, the truth isn't just something that makes you feel good.  We might not have direct access to objective truth, but we do have the conceptual tools for determining and analysing the probability of truthfulness.  We have universal rules of valid inference.  If you are going to debate ethics or the logic of anything else, you ought to consider these rules and make an effort not to argue from an obviously fallacious starting point as its a general waste of everyone's time.

I respect anyone making a general effort to make the world a better place.  I don't want to downplay how great it is that people can be so motivated by love, they can make these huge sacrifices in order to stick to their convictions.  I really do admire that and appreciate those kinds of people.  But, that won't stop me from voicing my concerns or criticisms when I experience dissonance.


----------



## Ninae

Philosophy isn't about aggrandizing yourself in any way you can think of but about searching for the truth. And the truth isn't always what suits you. It takes some humility.

For most who become vegetarian it's not what suits them or what is easiest for them. It' a sacrifice they choose to make despite of that. And it's not about ego, it doesn't really give you many ego-rewards or recognition in the real world.


----------



## turkalurk

what assumptions are wrong, and why would it be offensive?  Are you above humanity? Are you above Ego?  I won't pretend I am.  I can only try my best to keep egoic tendencies in check the best I can, but don't we all want to love and feel better about ourself?  Don't you feel like a superior version of yourself when you stick by your convictions and feel like you are doing the right thing? 

 I am merely suggesting that such behavior is a product of normal brain functioning(reward versus cost/consequences computations) and not the product of some universal code of ethical rights and wrongs.  It wouldn't be offensive, it would simply put you in the same boat as us all, until you claimed to know what is inherently right or wrong for everyone in every situation, then you could be in a smug lil tug boat.  Which sometimes is understandable especially when subtle.  I don't think its a bad thing to elevate one's ego when they feel they have done something for a good cause. I think its a human thing, and has a beautiful function.

  I don't really know what kind of boat you live in, but I do assume its as human as any other human boat.  I can only comment on my interpretations of your words.  If I misunderstand, then I am glad to hear it.  I am glad you don't feel it makes someone a better person to become a vegetarian.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Philosophy isn't about aggrandizing yourself in any way you can think of but about searching for the truth. And the truth isn't always what suits you. It takes some humility.
> 
> For most who become vegetarian it's not what suits them or what is easiest for them. It' a sacrifice they choose to make despite of that. And it's not about ego, it doesn't really give you many ego-rewards or recognition in the real world.




the ego is self, so it could be said the vegan lifestyle reinforces self esteem.


----------



## ebola?

Turk said:
			
		

> We have universal rules of valid inference.



What if I told you that people on both sides of an argument could make entirely valid inferences yet continue to disagree?  This is a key reason why we should explore the bases of our reasoning in the face of disagreement.

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

I dont eat meat because I care for the suffering of the animals. how is that even related to the ego.lol

again, meat farms are much more damaging for the environment then vegetable farms. get your facts straight.


turkalurk said:


> the ego is self, so it could be said the vegan lifestyle reinforces self esteem.





turkalurk said:


> *Furthermore, I find it odd how many of the vegetarians have expressed a lack of ability to empathize with their opposition which contradicts their claims of being these uber-compassionate people, and reinforces my criticism of the underlying smug narcissism motivating their behavior*.



fine, lets hear your argument on how narcissic it is for someone to stop eating meat, not because he doesnt like meat, but because he cares on the well being of animals and the damage meat farms have on the environment.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> What if I told you that people on both sides of an argument could make entirely valid inferences yet continue to disagree?  This is a key reason why we should explore the bases of our reasoning in the face of disagreement.
> 
> ebola



I am not saying it can not be done from their side, but they haven't been attempting to play by these rules.  Why debate logic with someone who doesn't attempt to apply these rules to their reasoning and rebuttals?  It seems futile.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I dont eat meat because I care for the suffering of the animals. how is that even related to the ego.lol
> 
> again, meat farms are much more damaging for the environment then vegetable farms. get your facts straight.



what about the chickens you suggest should be wiped from existence because they are unnatural?  Its about ego because it elevates your sense of self.  It often inflates one's ego to feel they are promoting a good cause.


----------



## murphythecat

they should be wiped of existence? Ive said, we should stop creating them. because, humans reproduce chicken in a very controlled environment.

we make sure they reproduce to kill them afterward.

lol, stop attacking people ego. your toaoist, you should know the ego is a illusion. stay on the subject rather then talk about people





turkalurk said:


> what about the chickens you suggest should be wiped from existence because they are unnatural?  Its about ego because it elevates your sense of self.  It often inflates one's ego to feel they are promoting a good cause.


how does it elevates my sense of self to stop eating chicken? 

stop eating meat is a good cause. and we do it because we feel that the way animals are raised is inhuman and innacceptable. I love a hamburger, but I dont eat it because I feel for the animals. its the exact opposite of ego centered choice.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> the ego is self, so it could be said the vegan lifestyle reinforces self esteem.



Maybe in your mind you would like to see it like that. When I became vegetarian it was because:

1) I felt eating animal flesh and dead animals was revolting
2) For the sake of animals
3) Because I was spiritually ambitious and meat-eating holds you back
4) For health reasons

Never did I dream I would be getting any ego-rewards for it and I haven't had any regocnition. The best you can hope for is to be met with tolerance so it's hardly the best choice for an ego-trip. As for "superficial", there are more superficial ways if you just want to feel good about yourself, not to mention there is nothing superficial about it. 

What makes me feel good is that for every year less animals are sacrificed because of how I live and there is nothing wrong with feeling good about something good you do.

Your whole outlook on this is twisted for self-serving reasons.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Maybe in your mind you would like to see it like that. When I became vegetarian it was because:
> 
> 1) I felt eating animal flesh and dead animals was revolting
> 2) For the sake of animals
> 3) Because I was spiritually ambitious and meat-eating holds you back
> 4) For health reasons
> 
> Never did I dream I would be getting any ego-rewards for it and I haven't had any regocnition. The best you can hope for is to be met with tolerance so it's hardly the best choice for an ego-trip. As for "superficial", there are more superficial ways if you just want to feel good about yourself, not to mention there is nothing superficial about it.
> 
> What makes me feel good is that for every year less animals are sacrificed because of how I live and there is nothing wrong with feeling good about something good you do.
> 
> Your whole outlook on this is twisted for self-serving reasons.



if those are your basic premises, then your arguments are weak and seem to support the case I have been making as none of them can generally be assumed to be true as demonstrated through these debates.  Its circular logic to restate your opinion without any support that your premises are true.  Furthermore, you neglect that most egoic tendencies that inflate one's ego and sense of self worth are done without being consciously aware of the underlying motivations, so you also assume people are always aware of why they behave a certain way or believe the things they believe.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> they should be wiped of existence? Ive said, we should stop creating them. because, humans reproduce chicken in a very controlled environment.
> 
> we make sure they reproduce to kill them afterward.
> 
> lol, stop attacking people ego. your toaoist, you should know the ego is a illusion. stay on the subject rather then talk about people
> how does it elevates my sense of self to stop eating chicken?
> 
> stop eating meat is a good cause. and we do it because we feel that the way animals are raised is inhuman and innacceptable. I love a hamburger, but I dont eat it because I feel for the animals. its the exact opposite of ego centered choice.



thats a common confusion with western interpretation.  Ego perception is an allusion not an illusion. Believing ego is all there is can be illussive, but  believing Ego is not a part of you can be as well.   I relate with  Taoism, its about balance not polarity, but I wouldn't exactly call myself a Taoist as I do not live a Taoist lifestyle.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> thats a common confusion with western interpretation.  Ego is an allusion not an illusion. Believing ego is all there is can be illussive, but so can believing Ego is not a part of you can be as well.   I relate with  Taoism, its about balance not polarity, but I wouldn't exactly call myself a Taoist as I do not live a Taoist lifestyle.


in buddhism, the ego is a illusion. the sense of self is created but not true objectively.

believing ego is all there is? what do you mean?
ego is constructed with memories, thoughts, ect. its only a construction, and totally impermanent.
maybe taoist is different though


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> if those are your basic premises, then your arguments are weak and seem to support the case I have been making as none of them can generally be assumed to be true as demonstrated through these debates.  Its circular logic to restate your opinion without any support that your premises are true.  Furthermore, you neglect that most egoic tendencies that inflate one's ego and sense of self worth are done without being consciously aware of the underlying motivations, so you also assume people are always aware of why they behave a certain way or believe the things they believe.



Don't you realise you're not even saying anything and just using standard ready-made arguments you think sound good. Pure semantics.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> in buddhism, the ego is a illusion. the sense of self is created but not true objectively.
> 
> believing ego is all there is? what do you mean?
> ego is constructed with memories, thoughts, ect. its only a construction, and totally impermanent.
> maybe taoist is different though



Perception is inherently allusive because it is an indirect subjective experiencing of reality and not reality itself.  It is "our" reality.  Perceiving the Ego as a seperate and distinct self is what creates an allusion of a seperate and distinct identity.  This identification of the concept of self(inner being) with Ego(personality attached to a body) is the illusion.  The concept of individuality is a functional and natural part of who we are, but we are much more than the sum of our body parts.  We are much more than a piece of humanity because we are not seperate from humanity.  I am human, and together we are humanity for better or worse.  no better, no worse.  Therefore, as an invidual with limited energy, my energy should focus on my personal relationship with inner truth, and not so much on projecting myself into a godly(objective) perspective.  Such endeavors can be exhausting.  I have found great wisdom in the Tao Te Ching, but I do not pretend to be some great sage that can always utilize wisdom by applying it to all of my decisions.  I can only be happy in knowing I am giving it my genuine effort to be who I am, and live my life in a way that I can appreciate for myself.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Don't you realise you're not even saying anything and just using standard ready-made arguments you think sound good. Pure semantics.




don't you see you are avoiding the argument altogether and waving your conclusions around as if they have been supported in the least.  Why should I put much effort into debating you when it is clear you are not being rational?  When you can start with some basic premises we can agree with, then I will oblige you with an adequate rebuttal.


----------



## turkalurk

Taoist Ethics

By Bill Mason

Selflessness
Moderation
Embracing the Mystery
Non-Contrivance
Detachment
Humility

Portions of this essay is derived from The Tao of Inner Peace by Diane Dreher. I highly recommend this book for the way it beautifully divides the Tao Te Ching into principles and ways to live.

Through the four basic principles of nature, there are several derived ethical suggestions which make up the bulk of the Tao Te Ching. The unique thing about the Taoist approach to ethics is that they aren't designed to preach to people about how to live. They're simply a description of what certain behaviors produce, when applied to these four principles.

It's sort of like wondering why your foot hurts but then you find out that you stabbed yourself in your foot with a nail. The Tao Te Ching wouldn't say, "thou shalt not stab thy foot with thy nail," it would say, "if you stab yourself in the foot with a nail, your foot is going to hurt!" This may seem like common sense, but you'd be surprised just how easily everyone violates the principles of nature.

Selflessness

One thing basic to the Taoist belief is a redefinition of "self" or "ego." Taoists believe that the way we try to stand outside ourselves in the attempt of self-observation is the source of most, if not all, of our unhappiness and loneliness, simply because in order to observe as such, we must see our "self" as separate from other "selves." This creates many unnecessary and troublesome illusions, and is based on an untrue assumption: that organisms are mutually exclusive. For a good argument against this assumption, as well as some of the negative affects of the illusions it creates, it is recommended that you read The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts.

The goal of Taoism isn't to obliterate the ego, simply because this isn't possible. In order to stop ourselves from seeing ourselves as separate, we must see ourselves as separate, which creates a never-ending paradox. The goal instead is to keep our attention on the greater whole, the process to which there is a pattern, which is known to always return the source.

The Tao is infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can never die. Why is it infinite? It has no desires for itself; thus it is present for all beings. The Master stays behind; that is why she is ahead. She is detached from all things; that is why she is one with them. Because she has let go of herself, she is perfectly fulfilled.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 7

Moderation

Limitations are everywhere. Even if you were convinced by science fiction that some day, humans will conquer nature, and we will no longer be subject to its limitations (which is logically impossible), think of all the other limitations you're given from day to day: rules imposed by society, parents, and your nation. Even if you pick and choose which rules to obey, you're still left to deal with the consequences. Limitations are unavoidable.

Freedom resides in the recognition of limitations. In knowing how far you're able to reach, you'll have perfect freedom to choose just how far within that range to reach. The ideal of unlimited freedom is an illusion. Maximum freedom is experienced when one is in the middle between the upper bound and lower bound limitations, in other words, moderation. Then one has the maximum range in which to alter his behavior. This is the Taoist ethic of freedom through moderation.

Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner. Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 9

Embracing the Mystery

Fear is a basic inate feature of living things. It is what allows the "fight or flight" response. By being afraid, one keeps himself away from danger. However, by humbling yourself with the knowledge that you are a part of nature, you know that you have to rely on nature for your needs. Not everything can be "out to get you," and, in fact, most of our fear reactions are overreactions.

Despite all we know of nature, through science and art and living, there are still many things which we don't know. How could we? We only have a brain a few cubic centimeters in volume. How could we store the knowledge of everything about nature? The truth is, we've stored only those things which help us to survive in nature, with perhaps a few added goodies which enable us with the potential to enjoy a happy life and pursue our own dreams and aspirations.

But what of all the things we don't know? That's what religion is for, right? Well, despite what you may claim is true or not true, despite all your opinions and biases, beliefs and disbeliefs, the Universe is still a great mystery to you, and much of life is taken up with coping with this mystery. Living your life in an environment which you know nothing about. No wonder why we're so scared!

But Taoists take a different approach. Taoists embrace the mystery. They enjoy every confusion and misunderstanding and mysterious thing they see, because to them, life is a game, and games, as you know, aren't fun without both the possibility of winning and the equal possibility of losing. Mystery is what makes games fun, and to Taoists, mystery is what makes life fun.

For this reason, Taoists still retain their basic innate fear. As Lao Tzu put it, "they were careful, as someone crossing an iced-over stream," yet "Receptive as a valley, clear as a glass of water." They balance their fear with their curiousity to seek the true potential of their existence. They look within themselves and see all that they don't understand, and they like it that way. Because they're centered in the Tao, they don't need to worry about that which they don't understand.

The Master keeps her mind always at one with the Tao; that is what gives her her radiance. The Tao is ungraspable. How can her mind be at one with it? Because she doesn't cling to ideas. The Tao is dark and unfathomable. How can it make her radiant? Because she lets it. Since before time and space were, the Tao is. It is beyond is and is not. How do I know this is true? I look inside myself and see.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 21

Non-Contrivance

As I said above, the Tao Te Ching doesn't preach. At most it describes the results of various behaviors, based on the four basic principles of nature. However, it goes on to warn against those who preach, or try to tell you how to live. It warns against contrived, or consciously manipulated morality.

Because nature is dynamic, and contrived morals are stiff, contrived morals go against nature. Furthermore, the purpose for these morals are usually not better living, but greater control, either for yourself or for others. By dictating your morals, other people feel a sense of control over your life, and its no different just because you dictate your own morals. The bottom line is that whether you're living better or not has no bearing on morality, only if your more controlled. Nature is not something that can be controlled; it controls itself. You needn't impose your control on it, or let others impose their control on you.

Perhaps an example would help here. Several years ago, I worked at a pizza place. I was a great worker, did everything I was told, and did it as efficiently as I knew how. I was very open to constructive criticism, and I was constantly trying to improve my job skills. One day, I had to pick up my mother from work and bring her home before I went to work. I got into work just in time, but I wasn't in my uniform yet. I changed as quickly as I could and reported to my manager at 6:03p.m. She asked me, "what time is it?" I said, "around six o'clock." She yelled, "what time is it?!" I repeated my answer. She told me to look at the clock. I returned and said, "it's six o' three mam." She proceeded to scold me for being late to work. When I tried to explain, she yelled at me to shut up. So I quit. I use this as an example because there was nothing of substantial value I could have done in those three minutes. She scolded me not because I have caused problems but because I broke the grand moral, "thou shalt not be late for work."

If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 57

Detachment

Because there are two polarities overriding all existence, to attach to one or the other would be to misunderstand them. By nature, they are inseparable. To have one, you implicitly have the other. Therefore the Tao Te Ching often teaches detachment.

Attachment can come in several forms, just as the yin and yang come in several forms. You can be attached to knowledge from the knowledge/ignorance polarity. You can be attached to life from the life/death polarity. You can be attached to action from the action/non-action polarity. The most general of all, you can be attached to the being, or manifestation, in the being/non-being polarity.

The Tao Te Ching teaches that learning is a part of life, but what you learn doesn't belong to you. To attach to your learning as your own, strutting your stuff and trying to scare people with your big concepts, or to even think that your knowledge is all that important, is to misunderstand the knowledge. In such a game, knowledge becomes a prize, and ignorance is the enemy.

The Tao Te Ching teaches that life and death are cycles of nature. One day something is allowed to live, the next day it dies. One thing lives at the expense of another, and this creates a chain of dependence of one species upon another. This is neither bad nor good, it just is. The goal of all species is to survive, but only as a part of the living/dying game. To attach to life and fear death is to misunderstand life. Life is a cycle, not a grand victory or grand loss.

The Puritan work ethic is prevalent in Western thought. Work, work, work. Laziness, by this way of thinking, is the enemy. The Tao Te Ching teaches that playing gives purpose to work, and work gives perspective to playing. Furthermore, as everything else, they go in cycles. Lao Tzu warned that anything excessive will lead to its excessive opposite. Thus, by preaching that everyone work excessively, the Puritan work ethic is actually creating laziness and excessive playing. People seek more and more exciting forms of play: drive-by shootings, all-night parties with kegs and every drug known to mankind, promiscuous sex, etc. By detaching, you allow yourself to live in moderation.

In the most general sense, all of these can be summed up as the battle between having and not having, being and not being, existing and not existing. The frantic struggle to control and possess more and more things (being, or manifestation), and eliminate lack, misfortune and emptiness (non-being). The struggle, of course, is what makes life fun, but without the thing to be struggled against, there is no struggle. Therefore, the Tao Te Ching teaches to honor the enemy, to humble yourself in knowing that you'll never win, but that doesn't mean to quit playing, it just means to play with honor and fairness. To use the game analogy, it means to not pull a .64 magnum on your opponent in the middle of a monopoly game.

Empty your mind of all thoughts. Let your heart be at peace. Watch the turmoil of beings, but contemplate their return. Each separate being in the universe returns to the common source. Returning to the source is serenity. If you don't realize the source, you stumble in confusion and sorrow. When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king. Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, you can deal with whatever life brings you, and when death comes, you are ready.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 16

Humility

"Congratulations! You just won! What are you going to do now? ... I'm going to Disneyland." This is a classic Disneyland commercial that most people have heard before. You know, whenever someone does something outstanding, they're what they're going to do next, and they would reply that they're going to Disneyland.

The proper question is, what else is there to do? No one is going to play trumpets for you and have the whole world bow. You'll get a bit of recognition no matter what you succeed at, but you can't expect too much. Disneyland happened to believe the best thing for someone to do once they've succeeded at something is to go to Disneyland. Lao Tzu would agree.

Humility means doing your job with detachment from the outcome. It means to commit yourself from moment to moment, all that it takes. Success happens every moment you do this; it's not something that only happens when you have no more to do. Actually, that's the time that you've stopped succeeding, and, of course, the time to go to Disneyland.

The Master does his job and then stops. He understands that the universe is forever out of control, and that trying to dominate events goes against the current of the Tao. Because he believes in himself, he doesn't try to convince others. Because he is content with himself, he doesn't need others' approval. Because he accepts himself, the whole world accepts him.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 30


----------



## Ninae

Don't you know when to quit?


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Don't you know when to quit?



Don't you?


----------



## swilow

Turk you have made assumptions about me as a person, my ideals,etc.  At least I've only responded and criticised to the content of your writings. The second you attack a person you don't know, you lose. 

You actually raise some good points that i will certainly think about and i apologise if I've not been fair to you. 

I'll not continue engaging you. I suggest u do the same as it ruins the discussion.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Turk you have made assumptions about me as a person, my ideals,etc.  At least I've only responded and criticised to the content of your writings. The second you attack a person you don't know, you lose.
> 
> You actually raise some good points that i will certainly think about and i apologise if I've not been fair to you.
> 
> I'll not continue engaging you. I suggest u do the same as it ruins the discussion.



we all have been making assumptions, and we are all free to debate the validity of such assumptions.  If my assumptions are wrong, show me where I have been mistaken.  Don't just assume my assumptions are ungrounded.


----------



## ForEverAfter

murphy said:
			
		

> turk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I find it odd how many of the vegetarians have expressed a lack of ability to empathize with their opposition which contradicts their claims of being these uber-compassionate people, and reinforces my criticism of the underlying smug narcissism motivating their behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> fine, lets hear your argument on how narcissic it is for someone to stop eating meat, not because he doesnt like meat, but because he cares on the well being of animals and the damage meat farms have on the environment.
Click to expand...


^You going to answer this, turk?

1. Who claimed to be "uber-compassionate", on this thread / website?
(tip: don't use "uber" in English sentences).

2. If you fail to empathize with slave owners does that make you smug or narcissistic?
If not, why? Shouldn't it, according to your ridiculous logic?

3. Minoring or majoring in philosophy seems to invariably make people think can out-argue other people's philosophical positions... The only reason I can see that you're so invested in countering the vegetarian argument, is the (repressed) guilt you feel... Either that, or you're upset because you got rejected by Ninae... What am I missing?

...



> Its about ego because it elevates your sense of self. It often inflates one's ego to feel they are promoting a good cause.



You appear to not understand the word ego, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
According to your logic, what, all good deeds are egotistical? (That's stupid.)


----------



## ebola?

Let's not go about basing our arguments on putative motives we suspect of those with whom we disagree; it's gotten us nowhere so far.



			
				ForEverAfter said:
			
		

> Minoring or majoring in philosophy seems to invariably make people think can out-argue other people's philosophical positions...



Discussion of our mutual credentials is also similarly irrelevant.  I know that Turk started it, but you didn't need to take the bait.

ebola


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> we all have been making assumptions, and we are all free to debate the validity of such assumptions.  If my assumptions are wrong, show me where I have been mistaken.  Don't just assume my assumptions are ungrounded.



Sorry, do you know me? If not your assumptions about me are ungrounded.  

Stop this man. You are not helping yourself here.


----------



## Mysterie

arent assumptions by their nature ungrounded.

to assume something is to speculate without any basis of evidence


----------



## ebola?

Yet no investigation can possibly get of the ground without founding axioms held true (and a surrounding theoretical framework that imbues categories meaning by contextualizing them).

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> ^You going to answer this, turk?
> 
> 1. Who claimed to be "uber-compassionate", on this thread / website?
> (tip: don't use "uber" in English sentences).
> 
> 2. If you fail to empathize with slave owners does that make you smug or narcissistic?
> If not, why? Shouldn't it, according to your ridiculous logic?
> 
> 3. Minoring or majoring in philosophy seems to invariably make people think can out-argue other people's philosophical positions... The only reason I can see that you're so invested in countering the vegetarian argument, is the (repressed) guilt you feel... Either that, or you're upset because you got rejected by Ninae... What am I missing?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to not understand the word ego, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
> According to your logic, what, all good deeds are egotistical? (That's stupid.)



so, you intend to convince me I am wrong by acting smug about my use of language?  fascinating!  Yes, the claim was actually made in what you quoted that their position was based on the empathy and compassion for life.  I suppose that empathy doesn't apply to those you argue with.  Look at the way you try and hurt my feelings by your attempt to publicly humiliate me with your perceived rejection.  Are you trying to harm my ego?  How nice of you to eat vegetables and treat your fellow man like crap.  

Slavery is irrelevant because arguments can be made on generally accepted premises whose conclusions and implications can be inferred from these premises.  A consensus can easily be recognized because we are better equiped at empathizing with our fellow man.  Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not? 

Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized.  In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.

People who studied philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason.  They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities because of their opinion is an educated one.  I never suggested that my education should make my opinion more valid.  I used it to inform you that attempts to use errors in my spelling or sentence structure, will not shake my confidence in my reasoning abilities.  Attempts to make me feel insecure are futile.  Nina herself could ridicule my attempts to compliment her and I would only laugh it off.  Like I said, it supports my hypothesis that it has more to do with ego because you sure don't seem very compassionate to me!

All good deeds benefit the self in some way.  Altruism feels good and I am glad it does.  I don't believe any action is selfless, bit rather unselfish or nonselfish.  Selfishness implies that an action benefits the self at the expense of or without the consideration of others.

Everyone has ego, its part of being human. Egoism and Egotism represent the unhealthy egoic tendencies.


e·go
ˈēɡō/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"a boost to my ego"
synonyms:	self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence
"the defeat was a bruise to his ego"
PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> People who studied philosophy philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason. They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities. I never suggested that my education should make more opinion more valid.



If you don't understand that it is fallacious to apply this as evidence to any of the arguments you've put forth, I question the existence of your degree.

ebola


----------



## ebola?

Turk said:
			
		

> Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized. In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.



However, we need to further explore this framework.  What determines the level of specificity we use as a maxim to judge by the categorical imperative?  Is it valid, for example, to say "One should not kill humans?"  Why that and not "One should not kill"?  Or why not "One should not kill perceiving beings"?  I'll note that all of these present cases for which most people would like to make exceptions.  I'll also note that I'm not at all wedded to this Kantian framework.



> All good deeds benefit the self in some way. Altruism feels good and I am glad it does. I don't believe any action is selfless, bit rather unselfish or nonselfish. Selfishness implies that an action benefits the self at the expense of or without the consideration of others.



So what is the problem with this?  One needs some spark of motivation to do good, and what's wrong with that leading to hedonism?

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> If you don't understand that it is fallacious to apply this as evidence to any of the arguments you've put forth, I question the existence of your degree.
> 
> ebola



fail, i said no such thing.  I said my education gives me confidence in my reasoning abilities but did not make my opinion any more valid.  Furthermore, credentials are not always irrelevant or they would be worthless.  Relying solely on ones credentials to prove a point is fallacious.  But, if my question was health related, then a person's medical education is surely important.  At any rate, I made no such claims in the first place.  I suppose if you can't find the holes in my logic, its much easier to fabricate them.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> However, we need to further explore this framework.  What determines the level of specificity we use as a maxim to judge by the categorical imperative?  Is it valid, for example, to say "One should not kill humans?"  Why that and not "One should not kill"?  Or why not "One should not kill perceiving beings"?  I'll note that all of these present cases for which most people would like to make exceptions.  I'll also note that I'm not at all wedded to this Kantian framework.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the problem with this?  One needs some spark of motivation to do good, and what's wrong with that leading to hedonism?
> 
> ebola



I never claimed anything was wrong with it.  In fact, I said it was a beautiful thing that I admire and I am glad it exists.  I am just making the claim that they are in the same boat everyone else is in and doing good deeds doesn't necessarily make you better at being human, it simply means you value the way altruism makes you feel and are more avoident of actions that make you feel guilt.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I know that Turk started it, but you didn't need to take the bait.



You're right.
Sorry.


----------



## ebola?

Turk said:
			
		

> fail, i said no such thing. I said my education gives me confidence in my reasoning abilities but did not make my opinion any more valid. Furthermore, credentials are not always irrelevant or they would be worthless. Relying solely on ones credentials to prove a point is fallacious.



You brought your credentials up earlier in the thread when they weren't being discussed, and you did not link them to explanation of your confidence in reasoning.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

Mysterie said:


> arent assumptions by their nature ungrounded.
> 
> to assume something is to speculate without any basis of evidence



as·sume
\ə-ˈsüm\
verb
: to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true

our knowledge is rarely certain.  The stength of an inductive argument is in the general acceptability of the premises.  

Technically, we only assume water will  always freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.  This assumption is generally accepted, because it has been verified through observation and experimentation, but it isn't necessarily certainly true and will always be true.  We can't even know something as simply as that for certain.


----------



## murphythecat

good action do make the person who do the action feel good, but good action, most of the time, will also impact others beneficially sooner or later.
of course, we all do good actions because it makes us feel good, but a really good action or good state of mind do have a effect on everyone you meet in life, everyone you speak to, ect. therefore, its not totally selfish.

and making good action along generating love, wholesome thoughts is far from selfish as caring for his own well being is the most important thing you can do. you deserve your love, your care, your attention, ect.
once you apply this more and more, you dont do good action to not feel guilt, you do good action simply because it makes you feel good inside and you clearly also see that it makes other feel good everytime you meet another person. 
after a while, you definitely becomes a better person, not compared to others, but compared to how you used to be. you clearly feel a progress and some things you used to feel/think/do that made you feel miserable is understood and not reproduced anymore.



turkalurk said:


> I never claimed anything was wrong with it.  In fact, I said it was a beautiful thing that I admire and I am glad it exists.  I am just making the claim that they are in the same boat everyone else is in and doing good deeds doesn't necessarily make you better at being human, it simply means you value the way altruism makes you feel and are more avoident of actions that make you feel guilt.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Sorry, do you know me? If not your assumptions about me are ungrounded.
> 
> Stop this man. You are not helping yourself here.



I don't have to know you to make assumptions about the implications of your words, and apparently neither do you.  

You keep whining about being offended but I asked you to explain these assumptions and how are they offensive.  I am just voicing my observations just like you are and have been.  I thought you were not going to engage me?  Is it important for you to have the last word?  Stop trying to help yourself man.  its not working, here.  Try to open your eyes and see things from my shoes, I am a living animal too!


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Slavery is irrelevant because arguments can be made on generally accepted premises that logically follow from their conclusions and an obvious consensus can be recognized because we are better equiped at empathizing with our fellow man.



Can you translate that from lawyer-talk into English?
I'm not sure what you're saying: slavery is unquestionably wrong but torturing animals isn't? How so?

As for empathy: it comes more naturally to empathize with your own family members over other members of our species, but that doesn't mean you should treat either differently. This applies to (our treatment) other species also... They are simply twice removed.



> Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not?



No, it doesn't.
In fact, it doesn't even make any sense.

You can't anthropomorphically project yourself into the shoes of a fellow man. I'm not sure you know what the word means? You appear to be attempting to elevate your point with long words, and overly complex sentence structures... and, it's backfiring.



> Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized. In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.



More barely comprehensible lawyer-speak. You're saying - what - because we've already established that slavery is bad that means it can't be mentioned comparatively in an ethical debate about vegetarianism?

You realize that the precedents we set, historically, for race and gender equality influenced each other?
How is this any different.



> People who studied philosophy philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason.



I disagree.



> They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities.



Perhaps too confident, sometimes?


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> I don't have to know you to make assumptions about the implications of your words, and apparently neither do you.
> 
> You keep whining about being offended but I asked you to explain these assumptions and how are they offensive.  I am just voicing my observations just like you are and have been.  I thought you were not going to engage me?  Is it important for you to have the last word?  Stop trying to help yourself man.  its not working, here.  Try to open your eyes and see things from my shoes, I am a living animal too!



i using words like whining isnt very friendly and people respond to you in unfriendly manner because you come off a bit too strong and make a whole lot of assumptions. a whole lot. I personally have answered multiple time and every time, you simply dont answer.


----------



## turkalurk

turkalurk said:


> Btw, u can continue to deflect the conversation with red herrings, but I have been graded on my logic and understanding.   I am very confident, because they have been verified by my high grade point average.  Its rare I didn't ace a class.  I have had a few classes that discussed Buddhism.    I am a very big fan of Taoism, which influenced Buddhist thought.  I just disagree with your interpretation of Buddhism, and trust my instructors understanding of it over your personal opinion.



wow what do you know I even mention the exact word confidence!  And look at who started what, i mentioned this in response tot he red herrings about my drunkiness and incoherence.   And, I would say in this context my education is relevant and I made no fallacious claims asserting that my opinion is even right or wrong, merely I have more confidence in my opinion becausr my information is based on the education I paid tens of thousands of dollars for.  I am more likely to take the word of a professor whom I paid to teach me about Buddhism, rather than a self proclaimed Buddhist whose statements contradict many credible sources.  

I really don't know why I have wasted so much time.  How empathetic of you to waste my time with these strawman arguments completely taken out of context?  You are really grasping for straws man.  tisk tisk


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> i using words like whining isnt very friendly and people respond to you in unfriendly manner because you come off a bit too strong and make a whole lot of assumptions. a whole lot. I personally have answered multiple time and every time, you simply dont answer.



do you want some cries to go with that whaaburger?  I am just giving you all a taste of your own smug medicine.  you make alot of assumptions about meat eaters.  You act as though eating vegetables makes you superior.  that can seem offensive, too.  I am not offended so easily though.  I won't lie and pretend that any of you are capable of hurting my feelings.  just words on a screen to me representing ideas.  I am not a regular, I will get bored with it and soon move on because its tiring to waste so much time arguing with irrational people.


----------



## murphythecat

again, constantly making personal attacks. you v literally attacked everyone in here. even Willow for christ sake, hes always so polite.



turkalurk said:


> wow what do you know I even mention the exact word confidence!  And look at who started what, i mentioned this in response tot he red herrings about my drunkiness and incoherence.   And, I would say in this context my education is relevant and I made no fallacious claims asserting that my opinion is even right or wrong, merely I have more confidence in my opinion becausr my information is based on the education I paid tens of thousands of dollars for.  I am more likely to take the word of a professor whom I paid to teach me about Buddhism, rather than a self proclaimed Buddhist whose statements contradict many credible sources.
> 
> I really don't know why I have wasted so much time.  How empathetic of you to waste my time with these strawman arguments completely taken out of context?  You are really grasping for straws man.  tisk tisk


and btw, Ive spent a full year in college in religion study and have taken two buddhism class. to be honest, I know more then my teachers. a whole lot more.  what they were saying and how they approched buddhism was clearly showing how little did they believe and how vague their understanding was. it was simply a intellectual class and the teacher themselve didnt even clearly knew some basic themes and avoided such central ideas and methods of practice and themes that its clear that they didnt understood buddhism. buddhism is a practice, not a belief. the belief will come with practice when you see that the practice actually shows the benefit and correlate what the great masters are teaching.

buddhism cannot be understood until you begin the practice, before that, its only intellectual. practice gives you the experience which allow one to understand and gives insight and that alone makes it possible to make true change in oneself. my teachers clearly havent applied buddhism teaching so their classes was basically useless. but thats my opinion, ymmv.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Can you translate that from lawyer-talk into English?
> I'm not sure what you're saying: slavery is unquestionably wrong but torturing animals isn't? How so?
> 
> As for empathy: it comes more naturally to empathize with your own family members over other members of our species, but that doesn't mean you should treat either differently. This applies to (our treatment) other species also... They are simply twice removed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> In fact, it doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> You can't anthropomorphically project yourself into the shoes of a fellow man. I'm not sure you know what the word means? You appear to be attempting to elevate your point with long words, and overly complex sentence structures... and, it's backfiring.
> 
> 
> 
> More barely comprehensible lawyer-speak. You're saying - what - because we've already established that slavery is bad that means it can't be mentioned comparatively in an ethical debate about vegetarianism?
> 
> You realize that the precedents we set, historically, for race and gender equality influenced each other?
> How is this any different.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps too confident, sometimes?


ok, you win, you irrationally naggd me into submission.  I am so tired of repeating myself it would be insane for me to continue.  Empathy is projecting yourself into the  shoes of another.  When you do this with any other creature it is called anthromorphism.  We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics.  However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.  

I must be obsessed with being understood because here I am wasting more time on an explanation that will only fall on deaf ears.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics.  However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.


and you project the idea that the animals cannot feel, just like you, the same emotions.



turkalurk said:


> because its tiring to waste so much tim*e arguing with irrational people.*


we are all irrational but you it seems. normally, when someone disagree with everyone, hes the one to fault. everyone in this thread have answered you and honestly destroyed all you arguments, only you cannot answer any of them adequately and resort to personal attacks constantly.


----------



## turkalurk

_[ebola: hi.  how about you don't post personal communications with (mildly) identifying information in public venues.  Thanks]_
-------

Original Post:
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/showthread.php?p=12949868
Quote Originally Posted by ForEverAfter  View Post
^You going to answer this, turk?

1. Who claimed to be "uber-compassionate", on this thread / website?
(tip: don't use "uber" in English sentences).

2. If you fail to empathize with slave owners does that make you smug or narcissistic?
If not, why? Shouldn't it, according to your ridiculous logic?

3. Minoring or majoring in philosophy seems to invariably make people think can out-argue other people's philosophical positions... The only reason I can see that you're so invested in countering the vegetarian argument, is the (repressed) guilt you feel... Either that, or you're upset because you got rejected by Ninae... What am I missing?

...



You appear to not understand the word ego, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
According to your logic, what, all good deeds are egotistical? (That's stupid.)
so, you intend to convince me I am wrong by acting smug about my use of language? fascinating! Yes, tje claim was actually made in what you quoted that their position was based on the empathy and compassion for life. I suppose that empathy doesn't apply to those I argue with. Look at the way you try hurt my feelings with your attempt to publicly humiliate me with your perceived rejection. Are you trying to harm me ego? How nice if you to eat vegetables and treat your fellow man like crap. 

Slavery is irrelevant because arguments can be made on generally accepted premises that logically follow from their conclusions and an obvious consensus can be recognized because we are better equiped at empathizing with our fellow man. Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not? 

Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized. In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.

People who studied philosophy philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason. They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities. I never suggested that my education should make more opinion more valid. I used it to inform you that attempts to use errors in my spelling or sentence structure, will not shake my confidence in my reasoning abilities. Attempts to make me feel insecure are futile. Nina herself could ridicule my attempts to compliment her and I would only laugh it off. Like I said, it supports my hypothesis that it has more to do with ego because you sure don't seem very compassionate to me!

All good deeds benefit the self in some way. Altruism feels good and I am glad it does. I don't believe any action is selfless, bit rather unselfish or nonselfish. Selfishness implies that an action benefits the self at the expense of or without the consideration of others.

Everyone has ego, its part of being human. Egoism and Egotism represent the unhealthy egoic tendencies.


e·go
ˈēɡō/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"a boost to my ego"
synonyms:	self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence
"the defeat was a bruise to his ego"
PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.


Quick Reply
Message:  
Submit Message
Submit Message
Log Out Top
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


I have not been using smugness out of context, it is completely relevant to the discussion and I have explained that is a simple observational criticism not something to be taking personally.  I have even admitted to coming off smug myself.  Its human to feel smug about our ethical principles.  

However, after a taste of this mod showing obvious bias by flexing his muscles, I am bored with this place already.  What an empathetic and compassionate group you vegetarians have been.  You sure showed me I was wrong about yas!


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> and you project the idea that the animals cannot feel, just like you, the same emotions.
> 
> 
> we are all irrational but you it seems. normally, when someone disagree with everyone, hes the one to fault. everyone in this thread have answered you and honestly destroyed all you arguments, only you cannot answer any of them adequately and resort to personal attacks constantly.



argumentum ad populum


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> argumentum ad populum


e·go
ˈēɡō/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence


turkalurk said:


> However, after a taste of this mod showing obvious bias by flexing his muscles, I am bored with this place already.  What an empathetic and compassionate group you vegetarians have been. * You sure showed me I was wrong about yas*!


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> You need to re-read it.
> I was responding to something you said, not RM..
> So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
> You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
> RM never said any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's such an easy stupid argument.
> It's OBVIOUSLY wrong. I've already explained why.
> Care to respond to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ??



Whether we would or wouldn't like something is irrelevant. You can separate feelings and logic because they're completely different things.


----------



## swilow

Well, this got weird


----------



## ForEverAfter

> When you do this with any other creature it is called anthromorphism. We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics. However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.



It's anthro*po*morphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...



> Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not?



...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.



			
				RM said:
			
		

> You can separate feelings and logic because they're completely different things.



You can't _completely_ separate them, though, because they overlap.
I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.

...

Examples.

1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.

2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.

3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand _why_ we feel good.

...

Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> It's anthro*po*morphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
> You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...
> 
> 
> 
> ...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't _completely_ separate them, though, because they overlap.
> I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
> But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Examples.
> 
> 1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
> This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.
> 
> 2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
> Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.
> 
> 3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
> We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand _why_ we feel good.
> 
> ...
> 
> Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
> There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.



I'm not talking about any convictions specifically. 

Your first example gives a logical explanation for why someone might be afraid of dogs, not why it is logical to be afraid of dogs. 

The second one provides no explanation for why someone might feel bad for eating meat, nor does it explain why it is bad to eat meat. You just said vegetarians feel bad for eating meat. 

There is a logical explanation for why sex feels good, but that doesn't mean sex is good. 

You've described several scenarios that reinforce my original point. Reason cannot define an objective right and wrong, therefore, something that is not confined to reason has to exist for objective right and wrong to exist.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I was just giving you some simple examples of how feelings and logic can overlap.
Sometimes, you need to do a bit of work (read between the lines)

1. It is logical to be afraid of dogs because they might bite you.
2. The absence of any logical reason why we should eat meat means that we - logically - shouldn't, since it causes unnecessary suffering.
3. Sex is good, logically, because feels good and without it we wouldn't be here.



> You've described several scenarios that reinforce my original point.



You took something out of context.
What I said initially was: logic cannot be separated absolutely from feelings, because they overlap.
You said, in response, that you can separate them (removing the words _overlap_ and _absolutely_).



> Why is hurting another person wrong?



Hurting another person is wrong both because it feels wrong, and because we can explain why it is wrong. You can argue until the end of time that there is no such thing as (objective) wrong and right, for convenience sake, but I don't believe you actually live your life like that.

If someone raped your sister, would you entertain the idea that it's only a matter of perspective as to whether or not that was a "wrong" thing to do?
I seriously doubt it.

...

I feel like a lot of the responses from non-vegans/vegetarians are sort of like this:

Vegan: It's wrong to eat meat.
Meat Eater: What's wrong?
(Fat Tony: What's a truck?)


----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> I was just giving you some simple examples of how feelings and logic can overlap.
> Sometimes, you need to do a bit of work (read between the lines)
> 
> 1. It is logical to be afraid of dogs because they might bite you.
> 2. The absence of any logical reason why we should eat meat means that we - logically - shouldn't, since it causes unnecessary suffering.
> 3. Sex is good, logically, because feels good and without it we wouldn't be here.
> 
> 
> 
> You took something out of context.
> What I said initially was: logic cannot be separated absolutely from feelings, because they overlap.
> You said, in response, that you can separate them (removing the words _overlap_ and _absolutely_).
> 
> 
> 
> Hurting another person is wrong both because it feels wrong, and because we can explain why it is wrong. You can argue until the end of time that there is no such thing as (objective) wrong and right, for convenience sake, but I don't believe you actually live your life like that.
> 
> If someone raped your sister, would you entertain the idea that it's only a matter of perspective as to whether or not that was a "wrong" thing to do?
> I seriously doubt it.
> 
> ...
> 
> I feel like a lot of the responses from non-vegans/vegetarians are sort of like this:
> 
> Vegan: It's wrong to eat meat.
> Meat Eater: What's wrong?
> (Fat Tony: What's a truck?)



Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of? 
Why is suffering bad? 
If we did not exist we could not suffer, it is not necessary to exist, there is no logical reason to exist, if suffering is wrong, logically, we should not exist. 

Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other. 

We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can. I do not live my life that way because I believe in an objective right and wrong, but I can't define it using reason. 

See above for the answer to that question. 

Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant. If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of?



That doesn't deserve an answer.



> Why is suffering bad?



I don' think anybody on this thread said suffering is bad.
Inflicting suffering unnecessarily on others is bad.
I've already explained why.



> Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other.



We're going in circles, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.



> We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can.



I already have, and you haven't countered it (at all).



> Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant.



Whether or not you apply the value system that you're proposing (in which there is no right or wrong) to your life, is certainly relevant to whether or not you actually believe it.



> If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.



If pedophilia isn't wrong, and it's just a matter of perspective, why do we punish pedophiles?
I mean who is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as our own?
Perhaps we should allow pedophiles to molest children?



> you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.



I'm not sure I actually ever said that, by the way.


----------



## ForEverAfter




----------



## RichardMooner

ForEverAfter said:


> That doesn't deserve an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I don' think anybody on this thread said suffering is bad.
> Inflicting suffering unnecessarily on others is bad.
> I've already explained why.
> 
> 
> 
> We're going in circles, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> I already have, and you haven't countered it (at all).
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you apply the value system that you're proposing (in which there is no right or wrong) to your life, is certainly relevant to whether or not you actually believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> If pedophilia isn't wrong, and it's just a matter of perspective, why do we punish pedophiles?
> I mean who is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as our own?
> Perhaps we should allow pedophiles to molest children?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I actually ever said that, by the way.



You keep repeating "Because we wouldn't want it done to us." There is nothing to back that claim. You wouldn't like something so it must be wrong? 

It is not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about our personal lives. 

No one but a God is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as ours.

Your very existence inflicts unnecessary suffering onto others.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> People who studied philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason.



Maybe on average, but learning philosophy is a life's work and one of those things that can't be mastered from a few years of lectures, like anything else creative.



turkalurk said:


> I am not offended so easily though.



No, but you easily offend.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> It's anthro*po*morphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
> You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...
> 
> 
> 
> ...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't _completely_ separate them, though, because they overlap.
> I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
> But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Examples.
> 
> 1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
> This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.
> 
> 2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
> Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.
> 
> 3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
> We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand _why_ we feel good.
> 
> ...
> 
> Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
> There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.



the po isn't necessary and any of then anthropo words can be shortened to anthro for efficiency without changing the meaning of the word.  This is a good example of how you lose credibility from me.  You know damn well what I meant.  You need to think about why you say some of the things you say and what purpose it serves.  Attacking a "misspelled" word supports my criticism about superficial and short-sighted morality.

 Most people apply logic, but that doesn't mean their logic is valid and consistent.  Number 2 is why I argue, you said there is no logical reason to eat meat.  This is what I have been arguing against.  I have illustrated this is wrong using the logic vegetarians have claimed.  If it is about what is best for the world and the environment, then eating lab grown meat as suggested in the article would be less harmful than clearing ecosystems so we can farm vegetables.


----------



## murphythecat

we can explain in many ways why its bad to hurt another person. its very logic.

I dont even see why you say all those things. is that a way to say that we cannot know if when we raise chicken in the worst condition, let some dies of disease and suffer for weeks, we couldnt really know if they suffer?

feelings can be explained and we can reproduce the same feeling if we apply the same factors that created that feeling.

why is suffering bad? suffering is inevitable, but if you can reduce the suffering, and you dont, then it becomes bad. therefore, creating suffering in others is bad.


RichardMooner said:


> Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of?
> Why is suffering bad?
> If we did not exist we could not suffer, it is not necessary to exist, there is no logical reason to exist, if suffering is wrong, logically, we should not exist.
> 
> Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other.
> 
> We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can. I do not live my life that way because I believe in an objective right and wrong, but I can't define it using reason.
> 
> See above for the answer to that question.
> 
> Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant. If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Maybe on average, but learning philosophy is a life's work and one of those things that can't be mastered from a few years of lectures, like anything else creative.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you easily offend.



its not my intention to offend, but most of what I implied about the vegetarians were first less directly implied by you and others about meat eaters.  So that makes you and everyone else claiming to be offended, all hypocrites.


----------



## ebola?

Turk said:
			
		

> If it is about what is best for the world and the environment, then eating lab grown meat as suggested in the article would be less harmful than clearing ecosystems so we can farm vegetables.



This doesn't really follow.  We would still need agriculture to produce the calories consumed by the cultured cells.  Due to the laws of thermodynamics, this will be less efficient than eating plants directly, but likely a great deal more efficient than current animal husbandry.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> This doesn't really follow.  We would still need agriculture to produce the calories consumed by the cultured cells.  Due to the laws of thermodynamics, this will be less efficient than eating plants directly, but likely a great deal more efficient than current animal husbandry.
> 
> 
> ebola



you do make a good point, but cultured cells could be fed algae and umbilical cords, we can come up with a different process.

Still, doesn't solve the problem of what we do with all the livestock?  

Personally, I would like to see something done to revolutionize the way we farm as well.  I hope that someday we will develop the technology to solve the world's current food and population problems.  Maybe we can start growing vegetables on space stations I don't know what the answer is.  I am just a human who likes to eat meat and who believes in Nature.  I don't want to live a contrived lifestyle.


----------



## turkalurk

animals experience emotion, but we don't know how comparable their "feelings" are to humans.  You can project your characteristics into the shoes of a chicken, but you are still a human wearing chicken shoes, you can never understand what it actually means to be an actual chicken.  They might like their life because its all they know.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> its not my intention to offend, but most of what I implied about the vegetarians were first less directly implied by you and others about meat eaters.  So that makes you and everyone else claiming to be offended, all hypocrites.



So two wrongs make a right (following your logic). But you know what, this is starting to become good entertainment by now. Being that it's no longer possible to take what you say seriously or be upset by it. And your debating technique is quite entertaining (if annoying) for many reasons in itself when you get used to it. 

Maybe what stands out the most is the way you seem to argue solely to project yourself as an ego in opposition with others (ever heard of projection?) and have no real interest in what you're actually talking about. The way you argue is also kind of the opposite of mine as I tend to get lost in the topic and forget about myself and who I'm arguing with at the time. This can also cause some problems, like lack of sensitivity towards the one I'm arguing with, but at least I'm sincere and genuinly interested in the topic and enjoy "losing myself" like that. 

It's like you have no passion for anything but putting people in their place and being right. Don't you ever get bored (with all these ego-games - that's what I would call this)? The mind boggles. And not just to be patronising, but if you really wanted to be taken seriously you would surely approach it differently.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> animals experience emotion, but we don't know how comparable their "feelings" are to humans. You can project your characteristics into the shoes of a chicken, but you are still a human wearing chicken shoes, you can never understand what it actually means to be an actual chicken.



I don't know what it's like to be you (or any other human) though.  I think that this problem (of other minds) can be partially overcome if we look at its neurological implementation.  Cells called "mirror neurons" implement empathy in humans.  Namely, these cells fire both when one completes an action (the motor sequences of specific tool-use are prototypical, but so are unlearned responses), coordinating the neurology of disparate brains, implementing intersubjectivity.  Now, animals (well, more social mammals) also have mirror neurons (even if they're unresponsive to learned behaviors).  Thus, we have the basis for a sort of shared ethical space.  However, we must take care in noting that it doesn't make sense to apply ideas of ethical maxims, responsibility, etc. to them or this space (ie, nonhumans cannot act as agents).  Therefore, it makes sense for humans to use empathy in this space to exercise an ethic of care, without entailing reciprocity.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> I don't know what it's like to be you (or any other human) though.  I think that this problem (of other minds) can be partially overcome if we look at its neurological implementation.  Cells called "mirror neurons" implement empathy in humans.  Namely, these cells fire both when one completes an action (the motor sequences of specific tool-use are prototypical, but so are unlearned responses), coordinating the neurology of disparate brains, implementing intersubjectivity.  Now, animals (well, more social mammals) also have mirror neurons (even if they're unresponsive to learned behaviors).  Thus, we have the basis for a sort of shared ethical space.  However, we must take care in noting that it doesn't make sense to apply ideas of ethical maxims, responsibility, etc. to them or this space (ie, nonhumans cannot act as agents).  Therefore, it makes sense for humans to use empathy in this space to exercise an ethic of care, without entailing reciprocity.
> 
> ebola



partially overcome is not overcome, lets bring it back to the context.  Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.



its not a support of my argument, its a criticism of yours.  I use logic and reason, but also apply empathy to gain a more objective perspective.  relying too heavily on one or the other can be problematic.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> partially overcome is not overcome, lets bring it back to the context.  Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.


but this is assuming that he wouldnt exist if we wouldnt have created him.
this assume that maybe, someone prefer to suffer then to not exist. interesting thought, but its only a thought, we cannot know. 
what its clear though, its once alive, the chicken doesnt want to die.
what is clear is that I prefer that someone doesn't hurt me and up to a point, I would prefer to die then to live in terrible and suffering conditions.
what is clear is that when you treat someone badly or you could reduce suffering of another being, but dont, you hurt not only the being you could protect, but your also hurt yourself.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> partially overcome is not overcome



In this case, it then follows that we lack a basis for empathy (and intersubjectivity in general) in humans too.



> Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.



I'd imagine that it lacks the cognitive basis to assess its existence in general.  However, it's rather clear that factory farmed chickens have a life of pain.  On the basis of empathy coupled with reasoning but also a good bit of guesswork, one could conclude that this suffering should not be wrought.  In this case, I consider it valuable to act on guesswork in part (is there anything we're really certain of?).

I'm also okay with elective abortion meant to spare the child a life of pain (I'll note that many mentally and physically handicapped people have very happy lives).

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> So two wrongs make a right (following your logic). But you know what, this is starting to become good entertainment by now. Being that it's no longer possible to take what you say seriously or be upset by it. And your debating technique is quite entertaining (if annoying) for many reasons in itself when you get used to it.
> 
> Maybe what stands out the most is the way you seem to argue solely to project yourself as an ego in opposition with others (ever heard of projection?) and have no real interest in what you're actually talking about. The way you argue is also kind of the opposite of mine as I tend to get lost in the topic and forget about myself and who I'm arguing with at the time. This can also cause some problems, like lack of sensitivity towards the one I'm arguing with, but at least I'm sincere and genuinly interested in the topic and enjoy "losing myself" like that.
> 
> It's like you have no passion for anything but putting people in their place and being right. Don't you ever get bored (with all these ego-games - that's what I would call this)? The mind boggles. And not just to be patronising, but if you really wanted to be taken seriously you would surely approach it differently.



wow, I had to start over twice.  this mobile format is stupid.  erases your information upon any refresh.  

did you think perhaps you are projecting?  You make all these offensive assumptions about me, yet accuse me of being so offensive?  Why do you like to prove my point? If I didn't care about the topic, I would not waste my time arguing about it.   I am an advocate (ENFP) personality type.  I welcome scrutiny as long as it is relevant, logical, and constructive.  I recognize my limitations as an individual which is why I argue with others to form what I believe live through the fires of constructive criticism.  To be honest, I was a little scared to enter a debate about this.  I expected to be convinced enough to feel obligated to try a vegetarian lifestyle.  I did not expect to reinforce my preexisting belief tyat the world will solve its own problems with or without me.  I did not expect for the vegetarian argument to be so weak.  At least, Ebola made some good points, and I am still processing these points, and intend to research the numbers a bit.  Maybe look into theories of alternative agricultural practices.  

I am the type that desires to change the world.  I want to write a book, because I think I have a great pespective on things.  However, I don't believe I am that special.   I imagine a personality like mine has already written books more coherently and easily understood as I could write them.  The truth will prevail with or without me in the long run.  So, I won't attempt to change the world or anyone's mind.  But, I still choose to express myself so that others might get a glimpse of who I am and see that we aren't all that different.  We are all equally Human.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> but this is assuming that he wouldnt exist if we wouldnt have created him.
> this assume that maybe, someone prefer to suffer then to not exist. interesting thought, but its only a thought, we cannot know.
> what its clear though, its once alive, the chicken doesnt want to die.
> what is clear is that I prefer that someone doesn't hurt me and up to a point, I would prefer to die then to live in terrible and suffering conditions.
> what is clear is that when you treat someone badly or you could reduce suffering of another being, but dont, you hurt not only the being you could protect, but your also hurt yourself.



then why do people commit suicide?


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> In this case, it then follows that we lack a basis for empathy (and intersubjectivity in general) in humans too.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd imagine that it lacks the cognitive basis to assess its existence in general.  However, it's rather clear that factory farmed chickens have a life of pain.  On the basis of empathy coupled with reasoning but also a good bit of guesswork, one could conclude that this suffering should not be wrought.  In this case, I consider it valuable to act on guesswork in part (is there anything we're really certain of?).
> 
> I'm also okay with elective abortion meant to spare the child a life of pain (I'll note that many mentally and physically handicapped people have very happy lives).
> 
> ebola



you keep taking my arguments out of context. my arguments do not apply to the treatment of animals, just to eating them.  Its a false analogy equivalent to the slavery thing as it is obviously something we agree is unethical.


----------



## ebola?

> my arguments do not apply to the treatment of animals, just to eating them.



I am thinking of the conditions required to produce animals for food.  In this sense, you are taking the argument out of context.  But illustratively, I also think that hunting (for food!) is more ethical than buying food at the supermarket (on average).

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> I am thinking of the conditions required to produce animals for food.  In this sense, you are taking the argument out of context.  But illustratively, I also think that hunting (for food!) is more ethical than buying food at the supermarket (on average).
> 
> ebola



i did not engage your arguments, you have engaged mine.  It is irrelevant to apply my arguments to a context I have admitted is exthically unsound.  For example, if I admit that assisted suicide is wrong, but make the case that suicide iitself can be justified, it is irrelevant to keep applying your arguments to assisted suicide.


----------



## ebola?

> It is irrelevant to apply my arguments to a context I have admitted is exthically unsound.



So we essentially agree then?   I also don't think that vegetarianism trumps other ethical issues.  We all cause suffering in varied ways, we all have blood on our hands, and the vast majority of people try to reduce the suffering they cause in various ways.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> So we essentially agree then?   I also don't think that vegetarianism trumps other ethical issues.  We all cause suffering in varied ways, we all have blood on our hands, and the vast majority of people try to reduce the suffering they cause in various ways.
> 
> ebola



yes, and this could have happened a long time ago, because I have admitted as much in my initial posts.  Like nina said, apparently my approach needs work, as I am not making my views clear enough to be understood.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.



My argument is that one's diet is usually not an intellectual choice, and ought not be used to weigh a person's moral fiber.  That vegetarianisn is a respectable choice, but does not inherently place someone in a superior position of "rightness."  It might mean the person could be attempting to exert more control over their life by attempting to form the world into what they think it ought to be, but that does not necessarily make someone better than the next person who shares a different code of ethics and moral outlook.  

  Isn't one's diet a "most natural, self explanatory impulse?"  Doesn't it stand to reason that intellectualizing one's natural and common human diet does not give any validation to your argument?


----------



## ForEverAfter

If that's your argument, I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
I mean: did anybody say vegetarians are better?

I think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong, but that doesn't translate to "I'm better than you" any more than you saying that you don't think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong translates to "You're better than me"... Does it?

Should people not be able to say what they think is wrong or right, for fear of being labeled smug/elitist?


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> If that's your argument, I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
> I mean: did anybody say vegetarians are better?
> 
> I think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong, but that doesn't translate to "I'm better than you" any more than you saying that you don't think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong translates to "You're better than me"... Does it?
> 
> Should people not be able to say what they think is wrong or right, for fear of being labeled smug/elitist?



yes, the claim has consistently been made the eating meat was inherently wrong, that there is no logic to justify it and that even contributing to killing by eating what has been killed by another is murder.  Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position.  I can only assume its smug and say it seems smug to me, because it has not been justifiable to equate an opinion about what is moral as an absolute without a sufficient amount of reasonability. As I have consistently stated, my initial discussion was aimed specifically at these aspects of the conversation and directed at Murphy who made the absolutist claims.

I am not suggesting that people ought not discuss ethics, I am saying we can't really have a discussion about ethics if its solely based on a feeling of rightness or wrongness.  I don't care if you come off smug or not, smugness doesn't bother me especially if it is subtle and disguised.  I suggest everyone should focus on just being who they are and becoming the person they want to be.  There is a place for everyone, even the evil ones.  I might not appreciate every role specifically, and value some roles more than I do others as I am only human.  But, I am grateful to have all roles to make Humanity what it is, a beautiful manifestation of Nature.  There is strength in diversity, without which, we would not be who were are today.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> yes, the claim has consistently been made the eating meat was inherently wrong, that there is no logic to justify it and that even contributing to killing by eating what has been killed by another is murder.  Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position.  I can only assume its smug and say it seems smug to me, because it has not been justifiable to equate an opinion about what is moral as an absolute without a sufficient amount of reasonability. As I have consistently stated, my initial discussion was aimed specifically at these aspects of the conversation and directed at Murphy who made the absolutist claims.


I think its morally wrong to eat meat indeed and when people buy meat, they encourage that immoral activity. does that make them immoral as persons, no. thats a conclusion that you made, a assumption that you did honestly and im not sure why. 

I think people buy meat without realizing their impact and the consequence of their actions, but do I see me superior as them, no. My opinion on that matter of the ethicality of meat is not yours to judge, insult and attack every chance you get.



turkalurk said:


> My argument is that one's diet is usually not an intellectual choice, and ought not be used to weigh a person's moral fiber.  That vegetarianisn is a respectable choice, but does not inherently place someone in a superior position of "rightness."  It might mean the person could be attempting to exert more control over their life by attempting to form the world into what they think it ought to be, but that does not necessarily make someone better than the next person who shares a different code of ethics and moral outlook.
> 
> Isn't one's diet a "most natural, self explanatory impulse?"  Doesn't it stand to reason that intellectualizing one's natural and common human diet does not give any validation to your argument?


I have to disagree with that. our diet is a choice and we decide what we eat. its our responsibility. the well being of other beings is also our responsibility. I think that eating meat is irresponsible but clearly, other dont see it that way. I dont care.. sorry if that offend the high opinion you have made of yourself. if you think its oral to eat meat, im very glad for you, but so far, nothing have convince me that its really acceptable to eat meat.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position.



Not necessarily.  This assumption is unnecessarily uncharitable to the intent of the person making the moral claim.  This is why I suggested we explore the assumptions underlying our moral frameworks.  I believe that people's ethical perspectives tend to be sufficiently complex to lead to ambivalence about ethical claims (regardless of whether and how such ambivalence is expressed).

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> Not necessarily.  This assumption is unnecessarily uncharitable to the intent of the person making the moral claim.  This is why I suggested we explore the assumptions underlying our moral frameworks.  I believe that people's ethical perspectives tend to be sufficiently complex to lead to ambivalence about ethical claims (regardless of whether and how such ambivalence is expressed).
> 
> ebola



out of context again.  You see, i didn't imply all vegetarians are smug, I said that they can come off that way when they preach and impose their morality on others by making judgements and implying a moral absolute has been broken.  As you see, my arguments are not meant to be absolute, but infered ontologically from the meaning of my words.  I start from assumed premises and infer their implications.  I never admit certainty, I take an agnostic approach to knowledge.  I reason that if "A" happens, then "B" is likely to happen.  If B group preaches to A group, about how A group lives their life, then it stands to reason that B group assumes they certainly know how everyone ought to live and thus will appear smug to A group.  Whether B group is justified in holding their position or not is an entirely different question.  However, justice usually involves at least a majority acceptance,  if not a consensus.


----------



## ebola?

> out of context again.



For whatever reason, I'm having trouble communicating with you.  I'll have to take a break.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I think its morally wrong to eat meat indeed and when people buy meat, they encourage that immoral activity. does that make them immoral as persons, no. thats a conclusion that you made, a assumption that you did honestly and im not sure why.
> 
> I think people buy meat without realizing their impact and the consequence of their actions, but do I see me superior as them, no. My opinion on that matter of the ethicality of meat is not yours to judge, insult and attack every chance you get.
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with that. our diet is a choice and we decide what we eat. its our responsibility. the well being of other beings is also our responsibility. I think that eating meat is irresponsible but clearly, other dont see it that way. I dont care.. sorry if that offend the high opinion you have made of yourself. if you think its oral to eat meat, im very glad for you, but so far, nothing have convince me that its really acceptable to eat meat.



I am not trying to convince you of what you eat, but sometimes I do mirror others behavior to try to impose empathy on them.  To make them feel what I feel by their words.  I don't always intend to do this, its just a part my behavior.  I don't expect to convince anyone how to live and I wouldn't want that responsibility.  I can only call things as I see them, so I certainly don't blame you for calling them how you see them.  In fact, I appreciate that you do it as I often value idealistic intentions.  I am just using my experiences to try to open your mind to other avenues of thought and see things from a wider angle.  I don't claim superiority, in fact, I have consistenly claimed ethic inferiority.  I have even admitted to a lack of integrity, laziness, other offensive assumptions about me because I am blatantly aware of my humanity.

I still think its odd how an mod involved in a conversation can issue warnings against his opposition.  I think it shows bias that so many nasty attempts to harm my ego in substantial ways went completely unchecked but I got a warning about my implications of smugness?  Seriously?  If there was a delete account option I would have pressed it.  I did ask Ebola to erase my account.  Apparently, that is not an option so I will have to resist the urge to continue any existing conversations. I wish you all the best of luck, and I am grateful for you all for your expressions of humanity.  You are all beautiful in your own ways, and I appreciate the glimpse that you gave me.

I have an addicting personality, and expressing oneself to others can become obsessive.  Has little to do with Ebola, but I do prefer less moderation and more impartiality.  It has more to do with putting my time to more productive and constructive use as I feel it was mostly wasted on fighting misconceptiins and misinterpretations and battling with everyone's ego.   It seems the very nature of a expressing your "personality" feeds one's ego.  When you oppose ego, you only seem to reinforce it.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> For whatever reason, I'm having trouble communicating with you.  I'll have to take a break.
> 
> ebola



the question I would like to ask, is are you trying to genuinely communicate with me, or compete with me?  You shouldn't feel the need to compete with someone who will readily admit ethical inferiority.  Why take offense to someone's criticism of smugness, when they themselves have admited to their inferiority?  My logic may be more consistent than most of what has been presented, but I have never claimed superior integrity?  In fact, I have done nothing but praise vegetarians for their conviction and appreciated their compassion.  Which is weird that I am seen as being so offensive to these people I have only claimed to cherish.


----------



## ebola?

You claimed that I took you "out of context" four times on the last page of discussion.  We're obviously talking past each other in some sense.  And smugness or implications thereof, of course, are not the issue (we, as in you and I, have not even been talking about that in this thread).  Rather, it was use of multiple, persistent ad-hominems that dragged discussion astray.

And while I'm sure that I'm driven in part by unconscious competitive drives, I am, indeed, trying to communicate. 



> If there was a delete account option I would have pressed it.



And then you continued to post for a few hours.  Give me a break, dude. 

ebola


----------



## Ninae

So, how do you know somone who spends all their life in slavery really suffer? Considering it's all they've ever known. How do you even know those who spend their entire lives in sexual slavery are unhappy?

Because your knowledge of human nature and ability to emphasise. And the high-level mammals have much in common with us. Just think of our ability to emphatise with our pets and share in their happiness and unhappiness. 

Or is there no limit to how inhumane a human being can be towards other creatures?


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> Why take offense to someone's criticism of smugness, when they themselves have admited to their inferiority?



I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish. I think that your technique of making broad assumptions about someone's ideals/morality/ego is misguided because you cannot really know anything about those things based on brief interaction on a forum. On the other hand, I know that I have criticised what you have written here. That I can do and that only because it is all I know of you. The basis of much of your fcomments about people here are based on your imagination. At least I have the vague solidity of your written word to base my criticism on. 

You've consistently lumped all vegetarians/vegans together to make criticisms of. There is an inherent illogic in doing that, rendering a lot (not all) of your conclusions invalid. I personally don't agree with Murphy's take on this topic, nor do I agree with Ninae's idea's. That's 3 non-meat eaters who don't see eye-to-eye. Vegeterians/vegans are as diverse a group as any. Overlooking that fact would lead anyone to the mistaken views that you've come to. 



> My logic may be more consistent than most of what has been presented, but I have never claimed superior integrity?  In fact, I have done nothing but praise vegetarians for their conviction and appreciated their compassion.  Which is weird that I am seen as being so offensive to these people I have only claimed to cherish.



You haven't been logically consistent. Point in case, you did it above, claiming to have "done nothing but praise vegetarians". It follows that those in opposition to you have been unreasaonable and irrational in determining that you don't respect vegetarianism and you would then be correct in feeling like a victim of injustic. Yet your first post describes this diet as a 'high horse'. That doesn't sound at all like praise really. It sounds like veiled antagonism, which you've gone on to aptly demonstrate, so to act shocked or dismayed at this unwarranted opposition is disingenuous and illogical. 

The generalisation that you did earlier is another example of a logical fallacy. (BTW, logic isn't totally infallible and there is room for illogic. But your claims to it need to be honestly examined).

I think you missed my point in my OP when I mentioned 'alternative lifestyle choices'. I wasn't talking about alternatives to meat eating, I was talking about other less mainstream lifestyle choices. The thread ended up being entirely about vegetarianism/veganism though. 

I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans. 
_
*I would never ever support this. I am against the state trying to impose any lifestyle upon anyone, and I would really fight against imposed vegetarianism. Slippery slope IMO._


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish.



Same.
I haven't found anything remotely offensive.
Slightly annoying, sure, but not offensive.


----------



## rickolasnice

> *I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans. *


*

If people stopped breeding them there wouldn't be a huge population of worthless animals.. Cows are slaughtered before they're three years old.. i can't be bothered to look up what it is for other animals so I'll assume cows are one of the older ones.. 

Apparently dairy cows can live up to 20 but they're marked for beef at 4 (two different sources, but still..) Just leave em be.. maybe evolution would take them back where they started.

If it was the meat industry that stopped one step at a time, rather than the meat eating - there wouldn't be a problem*


----------



## Journyman16

If we stopped looking after cattle there would be a problem, but probably not for long - short of slaughtering them all we'd ahve to let them roam, building up the predator stocks. Then of course, we would have a problem with those predators when they over ran the supply of new meat stocks. We might also have issues with disease from all the carcasses laying around the place.

It would be similar with other stock - slaughter them or deal with te consequences. Nature WILL balance things but it may take a while. We have vastly influenced natural ecosystems beyond normal balances.

But monculture vegetables and grains is almost as harmful - the Mallee and the Colorado dust bowl are two products of such things. We would be better I think in abandoning the vast megafarm ideas and go back to families producing their own - aquaponics offers a way for each family to at least live at sustainable levels in a few square metres and offers opportunity for small scale industry to come back to supply extras in life.

Such a way of life would immediately alter the balance of vegetable to meat we all consume - that would be a healthy thing I think. :D

Of course we'd have to overturn the 'Consume at all Costs' (I like puns :D) economy that is destroying the planet to benefit a few thousand people.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish. I think that your technique of making broad assumptions about someone's ideals/morality/ego is misguided because you cannot really know anything about those things based on brief interaction on a forum. On the other hand, I know that I have criticised what you have written here. That I can do and that only because it is all I know of you. The basis of much of your fcomments about people here are based on your imagination. At least I have the vague solidity of your written word to base my criticism on.
> *wow, hypocrisy is strong within this one, can't I say the same thing?  Oh, wait, you have based your criticisms if my words even though you admitted to only reading selected portions of what I wrote and continue to ignore any clarifications.*
> You've consistently lumped all vegetarians/vegans together to make criticisms of.  *  At this point, you are either lying, are delusional, or assume I am lying.  So, I will no longer engage your childishness.  How nice of you to continue to waste my time with empty rhetoric?  I will no longer engage strawmen.   *There is an inherent illogic in doing that, rendering a lot (not all) of your conclusions invalid. I personally don't agree with Murphy's take on this topic, nor do I agree with Ninae's idea's. That's 3 non-meat eaters who don't see eye-to-eye. Vegeterians/vegans are as diverse a group as any. Overlooking that fact would lead anyone to the mistaken views that you've come to.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't been logically consistent. Point in case, you did it above, claiming to have "done nothing but praise vegetarians". It follows that those in opposition to you have been unreasaonable and irrational in determining that you don't respect vegetarianism and you would then be correct in feeling like a victim of injustic. Yet your first post describes this diet as a 'high horse'. That doesn't sound at all like praise really. It sounds like veiled antagonism, which you've gone on to aptly demonstrate, so to act shocked or dismayed at this unwarranted opposition is disingenuous and illogical.
> 
> The generalisation that you did earlier is another example of a logical fallacy. (BTW, logic isn't totally infallible and there is room for illogic. But your claims to it need to be honestly examined).
> 
> I think you missed my point in my OP when I mentioned 'alternative lifestyle choices'. I wasn't talking about alternatives to meat eating, I was talking about other less mainstream lifestyle choices. The thread ended up being entirely about vegetarianism/veganism though.
> 
> I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans.
> _
> *I would never ever support this. I am against the state trying to impose any lifestyle upon anyone, and I would really fight against imposed vegetarianism. Slippery slope IMO._



one more time I will walk you through this.  I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians.  Especially, the ones who don't preach about it.  I still respect and appreciate the ones that do preach about it, but the more extreme one gets about pushing their agenda, the more that person is seens as smug.  Having a good framework of morality is a great thing, unfortunately it sometimes leads to preaching these morals, and that is what I consider a moral high horse.  The fact that I call it a beautiful one, means that I respect, admire, and appreciate it as it applies empathy and compassion more generously than I would be willing to apply for practical and pragmatic reasons.  Although I don't see anything wrong with my analogy of a fine looking high horse (hozier), I did respectfully relabeled the high horse as a stronger moral leg.  I find it laughable that you even imply that I am being underhanded and mean them to be insulting and offensive instead of it just being my opinion about those who preach unjustified opinions as moral absolutes.  At any rate, I am tired of useless conversation in which I have to respond to blatant misinterpretations from people who refuse to acknowledge any of the other things I have said that consistently conflict with these misintretations.  I am a blunt person.  Not a coward afraid to put my feelings out there.  I thought you were cool at first willow, now I think its useless to communicate with you because you seem to dig your head in the sand.  Yes, seeing that you don't care about wasting my time by addressing issues I have repeatedly clarified, sorry if I assume you are not very empathetic and compassionate.  I don't know you as a person, I can only go by how I feel you have treated me.  And, I can tell you in all honesty, I expected much more from someone that takes such a beautiful stance on the ethical treatment of animals.



turkalurk said:


> out of context again.  You see, i didn't imply all vegetarians are smug, I said that they can come off that way when they preach and impose their morality on others by making judgements and implying a moral absolute has been broken.  As you see, my arguments are not meant to be absolute, but infered ontologically from the meaning of my words.  I start from assumed premises and infer their implications.  I never admit certainty, I take an agnostic approach to knowledge.  I reason that if "A" happens, then "B" is likely to happen.  If B group preaches to A group, about how A group lives their life, then it stands to reason that B group assumes they certainly know how everyone ought to live and thus will appear smug to A group.  Whether B group is justified in holding their position or not is an entirely different question.  However, justice usually involves at least a majority acceptance,  if not a consensus.


----------



## ebola?

> I thought you were cool at first willow, now I think its useless to communicate with you because you seem to dig your head in the sand. Yes, seeing that you don't care about wasting my time by addressing issues I have repeatedly clarified, sorry if I assume you are not very empathetic and compassionate.



Why can't you refrain from making personal insults?  How were my suggestions for how discussion should be conducted unclear?

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> So, how do you know somone who spends all their life in slavery really suffer? Considering it's all they've ever known. How do you even know those who spend their entire lives in sexual slavery are unhappy?
> 
> Because your knowledge of human nature and ability to emphasise. And the high-level mammals have much in common with us. Just think of our ability to emphatise with our pets and share in their happiness and unhappiness.
> 
> Or is there no limit to how inhumane a human being can be towards other creatures?




I actually don't know.  There could be sex slaves that might prefer what they have then the alternatives.  Regardless, I kniw that the world was meant to have a sex slave industry, because we do.  Maybe slavery in general is meant to teach a species about power and the responsibility to use it for the good of others and not against them.

one comment about slavery of a people, through artficial selection processes, an enslaved population will become stronger.  opposing something in many ways seems to reinforce or strengthen the opposition.  You can't escape the consequences of egoic action, even when egoism is unintentional.

Are you out there trying to free these sex slaves?  I wish I could be out there directly making a significant impact on the world like that.  I am too lazy and lack that kind of integrity.  I used to try my best  not to step on bugs, not to kill anything but trap it and take them outside.  I grew out of it, after realizing how impractical it can be.   I moved into a house infested with mice, and no matter how far I drove them to release them, I would catch more and more.  My pets broke out in allergic reactions,  mouse shit on our utensils.  I tried to block them out, but they chewed through my bloackades.  If I were the only one living there, I wonder if I would have been content sharing my space with them.  I seriously could have been that far gone.  I could have become so dissociated from my human identity I could imagine myself content with living as a wild nature hermit who fed on nuts and berries.  But, I had other people to considered, and I started to think about what benefit could humanity serve to the world.  what great thing can humanity do, that would make all this suffering worth it.  That's when I started making the connection between suffering and intelligence. Then, I started thinking of all the ways our technological advances can someday save the entire planet.  Can someday lead to the spread of life across the galaxy.  Can someday be used to create a realistic utopian World.

I love my pets like they are my children.  If we were trapped in a bomb shelter with no food, I am unsure I could eat him.  I would share my resources with him until we starved to death or I got hungry enough to devour him. Its possible I might even try to feed him little pieces of myself if I knew help was on the way and a finger or something small could sustain him. I won't know until that actually happens.  I don't know you at all, but you are a human and I value what is closest to me not just with respect to personal relationships, but as a species.  
Although, I love my dog to death, if there were no other option, I would roast my dog so you could eat.  Do you understand my point?


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> Why can't you refrain from making personal insults?  How were my suggestions for how discussion should be conducted unclear?
> 
> ebola



flex your muscles all you want, i have no respect for your authority.  claiming someone isn't all that empathetic and compassionate is not an insult (if I wanted to insult I would call him an asshole) and is not ad hominem when justified with a reasonable explanation.  If you want to censor my posts delete them.  If you want to censor me, delete me.  I certainly won't censor myself.  I don't see anything wrong or unfair with the things I say.


----------



## Ninae

You just don't really fit in with the tone of the forum these days. It has been very peaceful for the past six months and people are generally polite and don't try to wind each other up. I know there must be boards that are much worse but this is not like that and quite strict (ignoring warnings usually leads to bans).


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> I still think its odd how an mod involved in a conversation can issue warnings against his opposition. I think it shows bias that so many nasty attempts to harm my ego in substantial ways went completely unchecked but I got a warning about my implications of smugness?



There was consensus among the whole mod team here behind my warnings.  If you consider the decision unfair, I encourage you to contact an admin via PM (Vaya or alasdairm), as that's a better way to reach a viable solution than off-topic complaining in a public venue.



> is not ad hominem when justified with a reasonable explanation.



Validity of reasoning is not enough.  It must be directly applicable to the argument you're putting forth or that which you're critiquing.  If the only topic you're discussing is negative character traits of your opponents in debate, then you should steer things back on topic anyway.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> You just don't really fit in with the tone of the forum these days. It has been very peaceful for the past six months and people are generally polite and don't try to wind each other up. I know there must be boards that are much worse but this is not like that and quite strict (ignoring warnings usually leads to bans).



So now I don't fit in with the tone of these boards because I won't fall into your style of thinking?  I have asked to be banned.  I welcome it, I have been on several forums with little to no moderation and there is a much wider array of opinions.  How empathetic and compassionate of you to make me feel welcomed?


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> There was consensus among the whole mod team here behind my warnings.  If you consider the decision unfair, I encourage you to contact an admin via PM (Vaya or alasdairm), as that's a better way to reach a viable solution than off-topic complaining in a public venue.
> 
> 
> 
> Validity of reasoning is not enough.  It must be directly applicable to the argument you're putting forth or that which you're critiquing.  If the only topic you're discussing is negative character traits of your opponents in debate, then you should steer things back on topic anyway.
> 
> ebola



if someone uses empathy and compassion for animals as a basis for their ethics, it is perfectly relevant to challenge such a claim on the basis of how that person who claims empathy and compassion for all animals, has showed me(an animal) so little.


----------



## Xorkoth

It's Bluelight policy to not delete accounts.  If you don't want to post here, then don't post here.  I don't see the problem.  Lots of people are happy with Bluelight; if you're not, then that's fine, but continually saying you want to be banned and then posting more seems silly.


----------



## turkalurk

Xorkoth said:


> It's Bluelight policy to not delete accounts.  If you don't want to post here, then don't post here.  I don't see the problem.  Lots of people are happy with Bluelight; if you're not, then that's fine, but continually saying you want to be banned and then posting more seems silly.



Not when I have admitted to an addictive and obsessive personality.  As a forum regular, you should understand it can be difficult to withdraw from an ongoing conversation, eapecially a hostile one.  you should also understand a pack mentality and how one must feel as an individual standing up against the pack in a reasonable way and getting attacked and caught up in tine wasting empty rhetoric not even attacking my statements but nothing but strawman statement.  I had rehection theown in my face, avcused of being drunk, accused of all sorts of nonsense, but I can't say a person has showed me a lack of compassion. How blind can you be man.  I could only imagine how someone without as much confidence in themselves would have been very hurt by the way they were treated by a "empathetic and compassionate" group of people.  So, yea, I feel I should take a stand and make others aware how fucked up and hypocritical this place is.


----------



## ebola?

This is still not the appropriate venue for this.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> So now I don't fit in with the tone of these boards because I won't fall into your style of thinking?  I have asked to be banned.  I welcome it, I have been on several forums with little to no moderation and there is a much wider array of opinions.  How empathetic and compassionate of you to make me feel welcomed?




Again you misunderstand. I wasn't being personal, I was just trying to be objective and tell you how it works. I've been banned more than once for trying to defend myself or part-taking in an argument I didn't start. However, I don't complain about it as I understand it's a way of trying to keep the peace on a very large message board, and no one are really interested in what is fair to you or why you're acting in a way that creates unrest in the first place. It's just how it is and what you have to adjust to if you're going to keep posting. At least you have to try to understand, pull yourself together.


----------



## RichardMooner

murphythecat said:


> we can explain in many ways why its bad to hurt another person. its very logic.
> 
> I dont even see why you say all those things. is that a way to say that we cannot know if when we raise chicken in the worst condition, let some dies of disease and suffer for weeks, we couldnt really know if they suffer?
> 
> feelings can be explained and we can reproduce the same feeling if we apply the same factors that created that feeling.
> 
> why is suffering bad? suffering is inevitable, but if you can reduce the suffering, and you dont, then it becomes bad. therefore, creating suffering in others is bad.



You keep saying bad....but you haven't defined "bad". What's "bad"?


----------



## murphythecat

RichardMooner said:


> You keep saying bad....but you haven't defined "bad". What's "bad"?


what is unchangeable isnt bad, it is what it is.
whats bad? everything that create suffering in you or others that you could change, but you dont.

Our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our actions are all changeable. if you dont change a negative thought that has arisen in you for something positive, you create negative in you. if a negative thought as arisen, it is what it is. whats bad? its to let that negative thought affect you while you could instead change that negative thought into something positive once you've realized that negative thought had arisen.

for what you cannot change outside of you, it is what it is, but once you know something bad, and dont try to prevent it or change it, it becomes bad. bad only live inside you, so to speak.


----------



## Ninae

Many like to dim the line between good and bad as they feel it gives them more freedom and less responsibility in life. But they sometimes fail to fully realise how accepting responsibility and choosing to restrict your own freedom for a higher ideal can be a great accomplishment and is also necessary to some degree.


----------



## Journyman16

rickolasnice said:


> If people stopped breeding...
> ...there wouldn't be a problem


Taking out all the bits in between I think we have a SOLUTION! :D


----------



## Foreigner

I ate vegetarian for 9 years scrupulously, and found my health frail. I did it for ethical reasons and strongly ignored my bodily impulses to eat dense animal protein. It was a testament to my will power, if nothing else.

I am well aware of the perils of excess meat consumption, but my physical biology trumps all stoic rationalizations.  I've also observed that people in their 20s can get away with incompatible dietary choices for  long time because their youth shields them from consequences. Once you reach your 30s, your denials become obvious.

Not saying being a veg is wrong but not all of humanity can do it. It's immoral to assume that everyone else's body has the same requirements as yours.


----------



## murphythecat

its been shown again and again that a well balanced veg diet is as complete as any other diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health...or-Vegans.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetaria...egandiets.aspx
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publicat...rian-nutrition
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy...egetarian.html
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc...ary_130530.pdf
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-li...t/art-20046446
http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c...rian_diets.htm


Foreigner said:


> I ate vegetarian for 9 years scrupulously, and found my health frail. I did it for ethical reasons and strongly ignored my bodily impulses to eat dense animal protein. It was a testament to my will power, if nothing else.
> 
> I am well aware of the perils of excess meat consumption, but my physical biology trumps all stoic rationalizations.  I've also observed that people in their 20s can get away with incompatible dietary choices for  long time because their youth shields them from consequences. Once you reach your 30s, your denials become obvious.
> 
> Not saying being a veg is wrong but not all of humanity can do it. It's immoral to assume that everyone else's body has the same requirements as yours.


----------



## ebola?

Given that meat, dairy, eggs, and especially fish are somewhat nutritionally unique _combinations_, I can see why some people could have difficulty transitioning to vegetarian or vegan.  I never did, as I took the transitions as opportunities to learn about new foods, but I could see how someone could view this as a hassle.

ebola


----------



## Foreigner

murphythecat said:


> its been shown again and again that a well balanced veg diet is as complete as any other diet.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
> http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health...or-Vegans.aspx
> http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetaria...egandiets.aspx
> http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publicat...rian-nutrition
> http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy...egetarian.html
> http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc...ary_130530.pdf
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-li...t/art-20046446
> http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c...rian_diets.htm



Sorry but no scientific haggling will override the facts of my sovereign bodily experience in this matter. Saying that I just wasn't well balanced is horse shit. I know more about nutrition and proper meal planning than anyone I know, and it has been part of my medical practice.

Some constitutions are not optimized for the vegetarian lifestyle. Sorry that it's hard for you to accept in your personal ideology.

Nature supported omnivorous living until we had 7 billion humans. Most vegetarian cultures existed in the tropics and hot regions. The northern climates have never supported it year round. The only way people can be veg in northern climates is with supplements and eating imported foods. The earth is still on fire, so that raw vegans in the pacific northwest can eat avocados and cacao and call themselves ethical.

Fuck off.


----------



## murphythecat

oups, I didnt mean to be insulting at all. there's different grades of vegetarian.

Im not vegan, and I think the vegan part is a bit extreme if you have to exclude all dairy product and eggs.
If I look at this:
_ *Lacto-vegetarian* diets exclude meat, fish, poultry and eggs, as well as foods that contain them. Dairy    products, such as milk, cheese, yogurt and butter, are included.
*Lacto-ovo* vegetarian diets exclude meat, fish and poultry, but allow dairy products and eggs.
*Ovo-vegetarian* diets exclude meat, poultry, seafood and dairy products, but allow eggs.
* Vegan* diets exclude meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products — and foods that contain these products._

I guess im Lacto-ovo. Real vegan would be much harder for me to follow im sure and it would be sure hard. what kind of vegetarian were you?

but beans, nuts, lentils, seeds, fruits, vegetable along with all the starchy food would be enough to feed any person. I dont see why one would absolutely need to eat meat to survive. Maybe some type of people have no choice but to eat meat? im curious if this has been documented and proven as a fact. 





Foreigner said:


> Sorry but no scientific haggling will override the facts of my sovereign bodily experience in this matter. Saying that I just wasn't well balanced is horse shit. I know more about nutrition and proper meal planning than anyone I know, and it has been part of my medical practice.
> 
> Some constitutions are not optimized for the vegetarian lifestyle. Sorry that it's hard for you to accept in your personal ideology.
> 
> Nature supported omnivorous living until we had 7 billion humans. Most vegetarian cultures existed in the tropics and hot regions. The northern climates have never supported it year round. The only way people can be veg in northern climates is with supplements and eating imported foods. The earth is still on fire, so that raw vegans in the pacific northwest can eat avocados and cacao and call themselves ethical.
> 
> Fuck off.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Foreigner:

What minerals/vitamins aren't available, these days, in sufficiently bio-available quantities, in developed countries, to suit the vegetarian diet? (I'm not aware of any.)

Did you get your levels tested regularly when you were a vegetarian and/or when you decided that you weren't feeling well enough with a vegetarian diet to sustain it for the rest of your life? If so, what were you low on? And, couldn't you have adjusted your intake according to what your body lacked?

Like Murphy said, I'd understand your point more if it pertained to veganism.
It's hard being vegan. I'm a gluten-free vegan which is a pain in the fucking ass, practically speaking.
But vegetarianism isn't hard, unless you've got some kind of condition/allergy that wipes out a substantial portion of your dietary options... Unless I'm missing something?


----------



## swilow

foreigner said:
			
		

> It's immoral to assume that everyone else's body has the same requirements as yours.



I wonder if 'immoral' is really the right word to use? There's actually pretty sound basis for assuming that many different human bodies function in similar ways. But I take your point; one should not use their own experience as the only truth in a given circumstance.


----------



## Xorkoth

murphythecat said:


> but beans, nuts, lentils, seeds, fruits, vegetable along with all the starchy food would be enough to feed any person. I dont see why one would absolutely need to eat meat to survive. Maybe some type of people have no choice but to eat meat? im curious if this has been documented and proven as a fact.



Historically, there are a great many cultures throughout the world that had to eat meat to survive.  As foreigner was saying, generally the more north you go, the less possible it is to survive without meat, except today due to globalization and shipping and industry.  Arctic people eat/ate almost exclusively meat, from seals, etc.  There are still a whole lot of people in the world today who have to eat meat to survive.  The ability to survive without meat used to be possible only for some cultures, in tropical areas for example.  Most people evolved eating meat and plants, and over many successive generations their bodies adapted to work optimally on this combination.  To cut out meat in a single generation is going to have different effects on different people.  Some people aren't going to respond well.  For those people I think eating meat is the optimal choice for their personal health, and not just a preference.


----------



## Foreigner

I'm saying that if you live north of the 49th parallel, your year round vegetarian diet is supported by imports, which require fossil fuels and biosphere destruction to get to you. Traditionally in the colder climates they stored grain, root vegetables and cured meats to tide over through the winter. Then spring and summer was the gathering time to pickup lost nutrition and make preserves.

Going veg and then relying on a globalized economy or vitamins (which are not food) is hardly a more ethical lifestyle. If you just want to be veg then fine but acting like you're better than meat eaters is ignorant. I am way healthier now that I can procure local organic meat than I ever was as a veg, and its not like I'm even eating meat every day.

Most vegetarians I've met pick up all their protein from dairy. They eat a shit load of it, and dairy farms have horrendous practices. You're still relying on animals to get your fix, in some way or another, unless you're vegan. And frankly, people who are vegan by choice in the northern climates are ruining themselves. I'm yet to meet a raw vegan here in Canada over 30 years old who doesn't look like hell or have cognitive problems. Honest to god.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I get that, but numerous people - including you - have said that their bodies are vaguely incompatible with a vegetarian diet (which I'm not entirely convinced of)...



> people who are vegan by choice in the northern climates are ruining themselves



Ignoring periods of history when import food wasn't readily available, why should north / south be an issue?



> Going veg and then relying on a globalized economy or vitamins (which are not food) is hardly a more ethical lifestyle.



I don't think it's worse for the planet to produce vegetarian produce than it is to produce meat...
Being a vegetarian, you contribute to the dairy industry which isn't very far removed (if at all) from the meat industry IMO. But, at least you're not contributing to both.



> If you just want to be veg then fine but acting like you're better than meat eaters is ignorant.



Again, I don't think anyone is doing that.



> I wonder if 'immoral' is really the right word to use?



Yeah, I thought that too.
Immoral is the wrong word.


----------



## Abject

The way you talk about it portrays a vegan diet as being on it's own and vegetarian/omnivore being close together. From vegan friends I have, I feel as though the vegetarian diet is a stepping stone towards a vegan diet, much closer to vegan than omnivore.
The point remains that I could be perfectly healthy eating nothing but eggs and dairy, or just meat, but if I were to forego all animal product I would be in worse shape no matter what combination of plant matter I ate.

Eating vegan is one thing, but eating vegetarian (the way you talk about eggs/dairy) seems like a no mans land to me. There's no real ethical benefit over an omnivorous diet (that I can spot) whilst having the drawback of no tasty lean protein.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Vegetarianism is closer to meat consumption than veganism is, in terms of the implied contribution towards the suffering of animals... I get that vegetarianism can be a stepping stone.



> if I were to forego all animal product I would be in worse shape no matter what combination of plant matter I ate



I'm not convinced that it's impossible to be just as healthy as a vegan.
It is difficult, especially when transitioning from a very different diet.
I'd, honestly, like it to be impossible... then I could justify meat.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> I wonder if 'immoral' is really the right word to use? There's actually pretty sound basis for assuming that many different human bodies function in similar ways. But I take your point; one should not use their own experience as the only truth in a given circumstance.



How come you don't wonder if "immoral" is the right word when others have specifically said, "It is immoral to eat meat?" 

Seems hypocritical.


----------



## ForEverAfter

You really need to read what you respond to a bit better, sometimes, turk....



			
				Foreigner said:
			
		

> It's immoral to assume that everyone else's body has the same requirements as yours.



^This is what willow was responding to, not "it is immoral to eat meat"... Nobody is saying the word immoral can't be used in any context, it just doesn't make much sense in the context of Foreigner's statement.

Ignorant would be a more suitable word.
Immoral doesn't make sense.


----------



## murphythecat

agree on all points





ForEverAfter said:


> I get that, but numerous people - including you - have said that their bodies are vaguely incompatible with a vegetarian diet (which I'm not entirely convinced of)...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring periods of history when import food wasn't readily available, why should north / south be an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's worse for the planet to produce vegetarian produce than it is to produce meat...
> Being a vegetarian, you contribute to the dairy industry which isn't very far removed (if at all) from the meat industry IMO. But, at least you're not contributing to both.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think anyone is doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought that too.
> Immoral is the wrong word.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> You really need to read what you respond to a bit better, sometimes, turk....
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is what willow was responding to, not "it is immoral to eat meat".



maybe you need to read what you respond to a bit better sometimes...

I knew what he was responding to, I am suggesting that it is hypocritical for someone to be ok with "immoral" as a word choice for meat-eaters, but when a meat-eater flips it around and applies it to a fellow vegan, then he "wonders if immoral is the right word to use."

 ironic, eh?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Your point is, once again, absolutely ridiculous... and I've already explained why.

Here is an example of your logic:

Woman: "I am a woman and I think rape is immoral."
Man: "I am a man and I think watching Sesame Street is immoral."
Woman: "Immoral is the wrong word."
Man: "Hypocrite!"

Whether or not immorality is an appropriate label for something doesn't dictate whether or not it is an appropriate label for something else...

If Foreigner had said "it is immoral to not eat meat", then your hypocrisy claim might make sense.
(As it stands, it is _nonsense_.)



> ironic, eh?



No. What I meant by you need to read what you respond to "better" is: you clearly need to take some time to comprehend what you read rather than having knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Your point is, once again, absolutely ridiculous... and I've already explained why.
> 
> Here is an example of your logic:
> 
> Woman: "I am a woman and I think rape is immoral."
> Man: "I am a man and I think watching Sesame Street is immoral."
> Woman: "Immoral is the wrong word."
> Man: "Hypocrite!"
> 
> Whether or not immorality is an appropriate label for something doesn't dictate whether or not it is an appropriate label for something else...
> 
> If Foreigner had said "it is immoral to not eat meat", then your hypocrisy claim might make sense.
> (As it stands, it is _nonsense_.)
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I meant by you need to read what you respond to "better" is: you clearly need to take some time to comprehend what you read rather than having knee-jerk reactions.


Wow, dude, really?  I don't think you understand.  To me, it is just as ridiculous to claim that eating meat is inherently immoral as it would be to say watching Sesame street is immoral.  The fact that you equate meat eating to rape, further illustrates my point.


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> Vegetarianism is closer to meat consumption than veganism is, in terms of the implied contribution towards the suffering of animals... I get that vegetarianism can be a stepping stone.



I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism.  Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)).  I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).


----------



## murphythecat

ebola? said:


> I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism.  Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)).  I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).


however, getting eggs from free range chicken begins to be much more acceptable and may be the best option. I will make the switch and get those eggs asap.

I agree very much that getting dairy product is as disgusting as eating meat. the way the cows lives is as inhuman as the meat farms. Before this thread, I wasnt as aware at the problem of diary product and the conditions. I may reconsider my intake in dairy product honestly.

protein source is available in seeds and nuts and beans so easily that you clearly dont need meat to have enough protein per day though.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> How come you don't wonder if "immoral" is the right word when others have specifically said, "It is immoral to eat meat?"
> 
> Seems hypocritical.



How do you know I don't think that? Are you making your fantastical assumptions again turk? I thought you'd given up.



turkalurk said:


> maybe you need to read what you respond to a bit better sometimes...
> 
> I knew what he was responding to, I am suggesting that it is hypocritical for someone to be ok with "immoral" as a word choice for meat-eaters, but when a meat-eater flips it around and applies it to a fellow vegan, then he "wonders if immoral is the right word to use."
> 
> ironic, eh?



I'm sorry but where have I, even once, said that meat eating is immoral? I don't believe such a thing and I haven't said it.

Again though, you seem to respond to things that you imagine a vegetarian would believe rather then what they actual profess belief in.


----------



## Xorkoth

Aren't there certain proteins that are only found in meat?  Not all protein is equal, it's not just a single thing, it's a bunch of different proteins and they serve different functions.


----------



## One Thousand Words

I'm currently eating a grass fed steak and duck fat roast potatoes. 

Fucking delicious.


----------



## swilow

Xorkoth said:
			
		

> Aren't there certain proteins that are only found in meat? Not all protein is equal, it's not just a single thing, it's a bunch of different proteins and they serve different functions.



I think the proteins in meat are more 'complete'. To get the same profile from vegetables you require a combination of produce.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> it is just as ridiculous to claim that eating meat is inherently immoral as it would be to say watching Sesame street is immoral.



It may be just as ridiculous, in your mind, but it doesn't qualify as hypocritical. Even if they are both ridiculous, they are different - unrelated - statements that have no bearing on each other.



> The fact that you equate meat eating to rape, further illustrates my point.



I don't equate eating meat with rape. My hypothetical implies no such thing.
(Research the functionality of parallel hypothetical terms, if you don't believe me.)

Here's an example:

When a child says that it's not fair that they can't go to a Marilyn Manson concert because "everyone is going" and their father lays down that old adage, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?", he is not equating the concert with suicide. It is an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the flaw in logic. Essentially: you cannot dictate behavior based on the behavior of others.

The flaw in your logic that I was trying to illustrate with the rape / Sesame street example is similar but that, again, doesn't imply - in any way - that rape is comparable to the consumption of animal products... For someone who's studied philosophy, and claims - therefore - to have a better understanding of logic and reason than most people, you appear to be seriously lacking in basic comprehensive skills...

Although I suspect you're just being antagonistic.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> How do you know I don't think that? Are you making your fantastical assumptions again turk? I thought you'd given up.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but where have I, even once, said that meat eating is immoral? I don't believe such a thing and I haven't said it.
> 
> Again though, you seem to respond to things that you imagine a vegetarian would believe rather then what they actual profess belief in.



again, you make your own assumptions.  read the quote again and you will see where I didn't say you said it.  I said others have said this, and I have took issue with it.  You can't change the sequence of events.  In response to my criticisms of the absolutist claims made by Murphy, you  have been trying to dispute my claims against this particular fundamentalist perspective, while applying it as a general criticism of all vegetarians.    With every step I have tried to explain what my argument was and how it is not a criticism of a vegan lifestyle, and was certainly not meant to be applied as the opposite absolutist claim against a vegetarian lifestyle.   

It seems you would rather respond to the things that you imagine I say, instead of reading what I have actually been telling you this entire time.  As I said, you say these hypocritical things without any indication that you are applying them to your own behavior.


----------



## ebola?

xorkoth said:
			
		

> Aren't there certain proteins that are only found in meat?



It doesn't really matter.  Our bodies break down proteins into their component amino acids in order to synthesize their own proteins, to constitute tissue.  Cooking also denatures most proteins.  While the amino-acid content of food varies a bit, all essential amino acids are found in plants (there are a couple interesting non-essential ones in animals, eg, taurine, carnitine).  When we say that an amino acid is "complete", we mean that it has a distribution of amino acids, particularly essential ones, similar to human tissue (or in practice, eggs, 'cause they're at over 90 percent 'complete').  Per this metric, beef is roughly 80 percent 'complete' while soy is at about 70 percent.  To compensate for amino acid deficits, one may eat protein from a variety of sources throughout the day (not within each meal, as once thought).

Basically, you're only really in trouble if your main source of protein is grains.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> It may be just as ridiculous, in your mind, but it doesn't qualify as hypocritical. Even if they are both ridiculous, they are different - unrelated - statements that have no bearing on each other.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't equate eating meat with rape. My hypothetical implies no such thing.
> (Research the functionality of parallel hypothetical terms, if you don't believe me.)
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> When a child says that it's not fair that they can't go to a Marilyn Manson concert because "everyone is going" and their father lays down that old adage, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?", he is not equating the concert with suicide. It is an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the flaw in logic. Essentially: you cannot dictate behavior based on the behavior of others.
> 
> The flaw in your logic that I was trying to illustrate with the rape / Sesame street example is similar but that, again, doesn't imply - in any way - that rape is comparable to the consumption of animal products... For someone who's studied philosophy, and claims - therefore - to have a better understanding of logic and reason than most people, you appear to be seriously lacking in basic comprehensive skills...
> 
> Although I suspect you're just being antagonistic.



I don't have to waste much time on this.  Your argument is called a false analogy.  

Willow already implied that he does not believe it is immoral to eat meat.

Willow has consistently responded directly to my arguments that were irrelevant to his particular views.  Whether he intended to or not, he stepped to the aid and the defense of his fellow vegetarian to counter my criticisms by misapplying it to his more tolerant/flexible views.  

When a fellow vegetarian was criticized for their views that they are immoral for discriminating against opposing view points without adequate justification, Willow quickly felt the need to criticize the use of the word "immoral."  I was simply pointing out that, under similar circumstances, he not only neglected to make any judgements about what qualifies as immoral, he started defending them against criticisms.  By applying the reasoning that,  " one should not use their own experience as the only truth in a given circumstance,"  then it stands to reason that one ought not make the claim that the eating meat is inherently immoral.  

You may feel in your mind that eating meat is comparibly as justifiably immoral as rape.  However, to me, and I imagine most other meat eaters, such a comparison is ridiculous, because it assumes that they are both on similar moral footing.  I have no idea why I have wasted this much of my time.  I can no longer feel there is absolutely any value in carrying on like this.  I will try to disregard and ignore any future comments.  Thank you for your efforts, but I find it doubtful we will ever understand each other with any accuracy.

Think what you want, I really don't care how you apply my arguments, anymore.  I gave it sufficient effort, now I must move on.


----------



## ebola?

> You may feel in your mind that eating meat is comparibly as justifiably immoral as rape.



He clarified his analogy (namely, that the comparison didn't entail that eating meat does the same magnitude of harm as rape, nor that it is a qualitatively comparable experience to that of animals in factory farms), but you don't seem to have taken any stock of the clarification across multiple posts responding to FEA.  You would do well to take your own advice, implied here:



			
				you said:
			
		

> It seems you would rather respond to the things that you imagine I say, instead of reading what I have actually been telling you this entire time. As I said, you say these hypocritical things without any indication that you are applying them to your own behavior.



Look: we're not getting anywhere by condemning each other for failing to understand us.  We all need to give each other some leeway and explain things patiently if we're going to make fruitful progress in this conversation.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

right, then what point would the analogy have?  if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy.   If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications.  However, this is tricky because Willow has already admitted that he does not believe eating meat is inherently immoral, whereas we can all agree(or I hope we can) that rape is inherently immoral.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> right, then what point would the analogy have?  if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy.   If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications.  However, this is tricky because Willow has already admitted that he does not believe eating meat is inherently immoral, whereas we can all agree(or I hope we can) that rape is inherently immoral.


for some, killing is immoral, for other its not.  at this point, theres nothing to argue. its a matter of values and some people doesnt have the same value. I consider that we have to protect life and make sure we dont create suffering in any living organism if possible.

taking a life/killing another being is immoral imo but for some its not. theres nothing to prove here. its evidence. some consider its okay because we have to eat. whats there to argue really?
I dont see how rape is immoral but killing is not.


----------



## ForEverAfter

This is the last time I'm going to respond to you, turk.



> what point would the analogy have? if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy.



It isn't a false analogy. You read it wrong.
It was clear what I meant when I wrote it and I've made it even clearer since.

You suggested that immorality must either apply to all things or nothing...
To be selective, you said, is hypocrisy.

I provided you an exaggerated example of how absurd this kind of logic can be, when applied to a _different_ situation...

My point did not rely on any of the terms being directly comparable.
I was making a logical comparison, not a qualitative comparison.
Perhaps you should read it again.

Before you get worked up again, just consider the following for a moment.
This is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.

...

a) it is immoral to eat meat
b) it is immoral to assume that your body is the same as another person's

You're saying that they both need to coexist or neither can exist at all.
That is absurd... Similarly, the following can exist independently of each other.

c) it is immoral to rape
d) it is immoral to watch Sesame Street

All I'm doing is showing you an example of two things that can be immoral independently of each other, without being contradictory or hypocritical. For the last time: I'm not saying that rape is the same as eating meat.



> If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications.



What I'm saying, if you bother to comprehend it, is not reliant on any qualitative comparison whatsoever.
(My point stands, regardless of whether or not I can prove anything of the sort.)

Please try and understand what I'm saying.
It's not particularly complicated.


----------



## Munchkoala

I was thinking of going vegan for a month, just to see if there are any benefits or dis-benefits for myself. It would have nothing to do with being worried about the morals of eating animals. More for a trial of health, and to see whether it helps me in anyway or does the opposite. 

It will be hard for me though, because I love a nice fat steak at least one day per week. 

I'm making the plans in my mind now of when I will implement this one month vegan trial.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It takes serious planning to transition from a meat diet to a vegan diet, without using vegetarianism as a stepping stone... You have to eat a lot of food when you're vegan and you have to be much more careful about what food you are eating, just to meet your dietary requirements.

I urge you to do some research and make a plan (on paper) that includes what you need to eat on a daily basis.
Monitor your intake carefully and get tested after the two week mark to make sure that everything is kosher.

If you don't do this, you might end up making the false conclusion that veganism is incompatible with your body.
It will be incompatible (unhealthy) if you do it incorrectly, so be careful.

While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Munchkoala

ForEverAfter said:


> It takes serious planning to transition from a meat diet to a vegan diet, without using vegetarianism as a stepping stone... You have to eat a lot of food when you're vegan and you have to be much more careful about what food you are eating, just to meet your dietary requirements.
> 
> I urge you to do some research and make a plan (on paper) that includes what you need to eat on a daily basis.
> Monitor your intake carefully and get tested after the two week mark to make sure that everything is kosher.
> 
> If you don't do this, you might end up making the false conclusion that veganism is incompatible with your body.
> It will be incompatible (unhealthy) if you do it incorrectly, so be careful.
> 
> While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.


Thanks for your suggestions. Perhaps I should take into account how much iron and protein I am getting when I transition over. Is there anything in particular you can think of that I should be watching out for?


----------



## ebola?

Protein's pretty easy.  Just have a protein-rich food, ie more concentrated than wheat, at every meal.  Iron's a bit trickier, but not by much.  Just be sure to consume leafy greens, legumes, etc. daily, ideally combined with something rich in vitamin c, to improve absorption of non-heme iron.  The two main key micronutrients to look out for are zinc and b12.

ebola


----------



## Abject

ebola? said:


> I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism.  Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)).  I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).



What are you trying to say man? plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate? that's gibberish iirc 
I don't understand your ratios since you can get cheese with a higher ratio of protein to fat than eggs, and you can get cheese with a much lower protein to fat ratio than eggs.
Furthermore I'm unaware of any legumes that pack more protein for the calories than eggs/lower fat cheese (let alone lean meat) so if you could be specific as to which legume(s) I'd love to look into them.


----------



## Abject

ForEverAfter said:


> While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.



Also sorry for the double post but eating a big steak and less vegetables *is* healthier.
The only bonus u get for eating heaps of preform vitamins is darker piss, and it's actually unhealthy to eat heaps of proform vitamin (something vegans don't need to worry about)
If you've got all the micronutrients you need (you don't lose them overnight either, as ebolas post seems to suggest, except for electrolytes) eating a bunch of salad is akin to eating junk food, that is, empty calories that could be used towards getting the macros you need.
A steak is full of protein and fat goodness, the opposite of "junk food"


----------



## ebola?

abject said:
			
		

> that's gibberish iirc



You don't recall correctly. 
What I meant is that plants one grows will contain a certain number of calories.  You feed those to animals, and a fraction of those calories will end up in their meat (including edible organs).  The ratio between calories contained in the animal feed used and calories of meat produced is the "plant calorie to animal calorie ratio" I was talking about.

ebola


----------



## ForEverAfter

Abject said:
			
		

> eating a big steak and less vegetables is healthier



I think what I was trying to say came across wrong.
I didn't mean to suggest that quality steak is junk food.
Having said that, my diet when I'm not vegan isn't as healthy.

I tend to not eat enough fruits and vegetables, when I'm eating meat, partly because I'm too confident that steak is healthy (so I severely neglect the rest of my diet). I also eat a lot of junk food when I'm not following a vegan diet, simply because it (non-vegan junk food) is readily available (and there aren't many vegan junk food options, around here)...

When I'm vegan my diet is super healthy and when I eat meat it isn't... which isn't to say that either choice is theoretically superior in terms of health (for me). That's just the way it is. I don't think anyone can say that either (meat or non-meat diets) are absolutely healthier. Some vegans look like skeletal late-stage cancer-patients and some meat eaters are forever surfing that fine line between another cheeseburger and triple bypass surgery. It is quite possibly to be healthy/unhealthy with a vegan or "omnivorous" diet.


----------



## Abject

ebola? said:


> You don't recall correctly.
> What I meant is that plants one grows will contain a certain number of calories.  You feed those to animals, and a fraction of those calories will end up in their meat (including edible organs).  The ratio between calories contained in the animal feed used and calories of meat produced is the "plant calorie to animal calorie ratio" I was talking about.
> 
> ebola



I'm still not understanding. Let's say grains contain x calories. Chickens and cows eat those grains. The produce will have 3 plant calories for each non-plant calorie, whereas the meat will have 10 plant calories for each non-plant calorie? If not I'm stumped, because I can't see how it could be that one requires more calories than the other, whether a chicken is just laying eggs or getting slaughtered it's gonna need the same amount of feed to grow.


ForEverAfter: I'm not arguing that you can't be a healthy vegan, or an unhealthy meat eater. What I am saying is that it's much easier to get your macronutrients through animal product. What I'm saying is that we need protein and fat, whereas carbs aren't needed for healthy function.

As I've said earlier, diets are a personal thing with objective parameters. For me to try and eat the amount of protein I currently eat, I would be way over my calories due to the carbs/fat that come with plant proteins. And I'd still be hungry and eating more, because it's not as satiating as meat and I have a massive appetite.
Because of meats calorie to protein ratio, I'm able to eat a lot of meat and vegetables to fill myself up. If I eat potato/grains/rice/etc I get way more calories for the same amount of food, and i'm much hungrier than I would be had I eaten a lot of meat. Eating vegetables is a good filler for me, but it doesn't provide many macros/calories at all, just a few vitamins and minerals. I like organs for micros, but they're too tasty and I don't wanna overdo them so it's more of a sporadic thing.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I'm not arguing that you can't be a healthy vegan, or an unhealthy meat eater. What I am saying is that it's much easier to get your macronutrients through animal product.



Okay, well I'm not going to argue with that.
Eating meat is much easier. If it wasn't more people would be vegan.
Whether or not it's easier doesn't have any impact on whether or not it is ethically questionable to knowingly contribute to the unnecessary suffering of animals, anyway.

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible for you, or anyone, to adjust to a vegan diet.
Meat is tasty, efficient (nutritionally) and more convenient than compensating with plants.
I accept that; but, I don't accept that it cannot be done.
It may be more difficult for some than others.


----------



## swilow

Is 'easiness' that sound a basis for making an ethical decision though?



turkalurk said:


> again, you make your own assumptions.  read the quote again and you will see where I didn't say you said it.  I said others have said this, and I have took issue with it.  You can't change the sequence of events.  In response to my criticisms of the absolutist claims made by Murphy, you  have been trying to dispute my claims against this particular fundamentalist perspective, while applying it as a general criticism of all vegetarians.    With every step I have tried to explain what my argument was and how it is not a criticism of a vegan lifestyle, and was certainly not meant to be applied as the opposite absolutist claim against a vegetarian lifestyle.
> 
> It seems you would rather respond to the things that you imagine I say, instead of reading what I have actually been telling you this entire time.  As I said, you say these hypocritical things without any indication that you are applying them to your own behavior.



Look man, I must say that our interaction is actually causing me a bit of anxiety and unease. You seem to have some issue with me directly, which is why you keep talking about me. I understand that I disagreed with some of your comments earlier and questioned them. This was never meant to be taken personally. I questioned ONLY what was written here and made no comment (that I recall) about you as a person. If I did, I apologise. Thing is, you have been making comments about me as a person and you've no grounds to do that. I'm not really keen on getting called a hypocrite because I disagreed with PART of what you said. I absolutely know that I am not 100% ideologically sound or always consistent and logical. No human is. I refuse to have that hurled at me as an insult by another human. I'm not sure why you can't see that despite being told that on many occaisions that personal comments are uncalled for and not permitted and, furthermore, basically obliterate the logical basis of your reasoning.

Its frustrating being misunderstood, but I have to accept that the fault is mine because every time I explain myself, you don't seem to get it. So I have to give up and cease communicating with you in this thread.

Trust me, it'll be better for all concerned.


----------



## ForEverAfter

ebola? said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vegetarianism is closer to meat consumption than veganism is, in terms of the implied contribution towards the suffering of animals... I get that vegetarianism can be a stepping stone.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism. Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)). I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that it does depend on what kind of vegetarian you are.
Consuming dairy and eggs contributes to the suffering of cattle/chickens.
Consuming meat contributes to the suffering of cattle/chickens.
Consuming neither doesn't contribute.

Veganism doesn't exist on that scale. You could argue that being vegan contributes indirectly to the suffering of all animals, by contributing to the suffering of the planet via other industries. But, you could say the same thing about driving a car or using the internet.

As far as directly contributing to the suffering of farmed animals, vegetarianism must be closer to meat consumption... Unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible, since you're obviously very well educated and you have clearly applied more brain power to / spent more time thinking about this issue than I have).


----------



## Ninae

You can't have both convenience, health, and taste, you have to sacrifice at least one. 

So if inconvenience is a big problem for you it can become very difficult as you have to work even harder to compensate the best you can in the two other areas.

I understand this can make it seem almost un-overcomable for many. Especially for men who's idea of cooking is to heat things and it's the most they're willing to do. Cooking from scratch takes time, learning to cook takes time, and coooking without meat even more so. So it would be a lifestyle change many are simply not willing to make.

Most eat so much processed and unhealthy food anyway, though, so it's questionable how much the health aspect really comes into it. Of course not for everyone, but for many, and even the majority. In that case it works more as an excuse. 

There still are so many who only care about taste and convenience and being able to eat whatever they want at any time so it's a bit meaningless to take the health approach as a justification in that case. I guess everyone has to be honest with themselves.


----------



## Abject

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm not convinced that it would be impossible for you, or anyone, to adjust to a vegan diet.
> ...but, I don't accept that it cannot be done.



I literally couldn't maintain my levels of protein (disregarding fat completely) without gaining fat from too many calories with the protein.
Sure, I could eat vegan if I wanted to eat an entirely different ratio of protein/fat/carbs, but I would either be hungry all the time (to the point where I'd just not eat in order to binge) or I'd be gaining fat all the time (due to plant matter not having anywhere near the satiety/fullness that meat/animal product provides)
It's possible for me to eat vegan, but it'd result in a higher BF% and constant hunger, which would affect all my interpersonal interactions and everyone would hate me for being a grumpy hungry fuck


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Is 'easiness' that sound a basis for making an ethical decision though?
> 
> 
> 
> Look man, I must say that our interaction is actually causing me a bit of anxiety and unease. You seem to have some issue with me directly, which is why you keep talking about me. I understand that I disagreed with some of your comments earlier and questioned them. This was never meant to be taken personally. I questioned ONLY what was written here and made no comment (that I recall) about you as a person. If I did, I apologise. Thing is, you have been making comments about me as a person and you've no grounds to do that. I'm not really keen on getting called a hypocrite because I disagreed with PART of what you said. I absolutely know that I am not 100% ideologically sound or always consistent and logical. No human is. I refuse to have that hurled at me as an insult by another human. I'm not sure why you can't see that despite being told that on many occaisions that personal comments are uncalled for and not permitted and, furthermore, basically obliterate the logical basis of your reasoning.
> 
> Its frustrating being misunderstood, but I have to accept that the fault is mine because every time I explain myself, you don't seem to get it. So I have to give up and cease communicating with you in this thread.
> 
> Trust me, it'll be better for all concerned.



If you get insulted when someone calls you on hypocritical behavior, then that is your problem.  When I get called on mine, I can laugh it off and see it for what it is.  My intent is not to belittle you, but to voice my genuine opinion based on my observations.  Are you saying that I am not allowed to think another person is acting smug about their morals, or saying things that appear hypocritical without voicing my views?  But. then would it be ok for others to voice views that I feel offended by?  Like when someone tells me I am lazy, ignorant, or lack integrity?  This is perfectly acceptable, but you are saying that I can't say a person lacks empathy and complains about things they he, himself, seems guilty of?

This is the second time you said ypu would disengage from the convo.  As I told you the first time, I would rather you not respond at all, then for you to keep misapppying my arguments as a generalization for all vegetarians.  But, you ignored my request and persisted.  I, too, get frustrated when I am misunderstood.  Heck, I have a speech impediment foe the first 10 years of my life.  So, some could say I get obsessed about making sure someone interprets my messages with some degree of accuracy.

I don't have nothing against you personally.  I am just busting your balls, because your misguided persistence annoys me, and I would like to correct it.  You could say that I am a hypocrite, if I hadn't admitted to being guilty of being Human.  You forget, I can admit it when my behavior implies my laziness or a lack of integrity.  I have even admited that I too can be smug when I am taking a stand for or against something.  Its only natural when you make a choice for the greater good, that you feel pride in yourself.  However, the more you draw attention to the "good" you do, the more you appear smug to those who don't see the necessity for modifying their basic natural food preferences or the inherent immorality of eating the flesh of animals.  Needless to say, I still like to put my two cents in.  Have I not appeared smug to you telling someone how smug they come off when they criticize the choices of another?  Like I said, I am just drawing attention to many underlying motivations that could be at work within some styles of thinking, while acknowledging that I am Human, so its also natural to be motivated by similar subconscious motivations.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> This is the last time I'm going to respond to you, turk.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a false analogy. You read it wrong.
> It was clear what I meant when I wrote it and I've made it even clearer since.
> 
> You suggested that immorality must either apply to all things or nothing...
> To be selective, you said, is hypocrisy.
> 
> I provided you an exaggerated example of how absurd this kind of logic can be, when applied to a _different_ situation...
> 
> My point did not rely on any of the terms being directly comparable.
> I was making a logical comparison, not a qualitative comparison.
> Perhaps you should read it again.
> 
> Before you get worked up again, just consider the following for a moment.
> This is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.
> 
> ...
> 
> a) it is immoral to eat meat
> b) it is immoral to assume that your body is the same as another person's
> 
> You're saying that they both need to coexist or neither can exist at all.
> That is absurd... Similarly, the following can exist independently of each other.
> 
> c) it is immoral to rape
> d) it is immoral to watch Sesame Street
> 
> All I'm doing is showing you an example of two things that can be immoral independently of each other, without being contradictory or hypocritical. For the last time: I'm not saying that rape is the same as eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying, if you bother to comprehend it, is not reliant on any qualitative comparison whatsoever.
> (My point stands, regardless of whether or not I can prove anything of the sort.)
> 
> Please try and understand what I'm saying.
> It's not particularly complicated.



it only seems that way to you because you have no idea what my argument was.  I said no such things.  

willow has admited that he does not think its immoral to eat meat.  He voiced no objection to the statement, "it is immoral to eat meat."  In fact, he defended it.

However, based on his logic criticizing "immoral" as a poor word choice, it stands to reason that he should have also voiced similar reasoning against the claim eating meat is immoral.

Really, you are wasting alot of time arguing something of so little value and substance.  Who cares if I think someone is being hypocritical, are you honestly going to debate something so insignificant when its not even directed at you?


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> for some, killing is immoral, for other its not.  at this point, theres nothing to argue. its a matter of values and some people doesnt have the same value. I consider that we have to protect life and make sure we dont create suffering in any living organism if possible.
> 
> taking a life/killing another being is immoral imo but for some its not. theres nothing to prove here. its evidence. some consider its okay because we have to eat. whats there to argue really?
> I dont see how rape is immoral but killing is not.



First off, not everyone values non-human life.  Not everyone believes that we have the same duty and obligation to treat all species of Life with the same amount of human dignity, and neither do you because you don't see to value plant life as much as animal life.  Since you also draw a line and determine a life is more valuable if its more closely related to your particular species of life, it seems hypocritical that you judge other's for not extending their moral obligation to other species of animals, when you also draw a line and fail to apply the same duties and obligations to all forms of life.

do you drive a car?  look what the oil industry has done to the environment.  Killed countless animals.  Are you killing animals because you support the oil industry by driving a car?  Look at how many humans are killed by cars.  Should driving a car, then, be considered inherently immoral?


----------



## murphythecat

Abject said:


> I literally couldn't maintain my levels of protein (disregarding fat completely) without gaining fat from too many calories with the protein.
> Sure, I could eat vegan if I wanted to eat an entirely different ratio of protein/fat/carbs, but I would either be hungry all the time (to the point where I'd just not eat in order to binge) or I'd be gaining fat all the time (due to plant matter not having anywhere near the satiety/fullness that meat/animal product provides)
> It's possible for me to eat vegan, but it'd result in a higher BF% and constant hunger, which would affect all my interpersonal interactions and everyone would hate me for being a grumpy hungry fuck


were you eating nuts, almond, seeds, beans,  ect. these contain crazy amount of protein. half a cup of almond gives you almost the third of the intake of protein a men need per day, which is around 55g.

ime, hunger isnt fully compensated by eating enough protein, starchy food is what fill one up. so oatmeal, bread, barley, lentils, beans, rice, potatoes will fill you up easily.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> I am just busting your balls



But didn't he just say he's tired of you busting his balls by now?


----------



## murphythecat

I value plant life as well and I protect and be careful with plants. However, clearly a plant can less physically suffer then a animal. we already have had this discussion about plant suffering vs animal suffering and the consensus was that eating a fruit doesnt do any harm.

I dont drive a car, I have no license.





turkalurk said:


> First off, not everyone values non-human life.  Not everyone believes that we have the same duty and obligation to treat all species of Life with the same amount of human dignity, and neither do you because you don't see to value plant life as much as animal life.  Since you also draw a line and determine a life is more valuable if its more closely related to your particular species of life, it seems hypocritical that you judge other's for not extending their moral obligation to other species of animals, when you also draw a line and fail to apply the same duties and obligations to all forms of life.
> 
> do you drive a car?  look what the oil industry has done to the environment.  Killed countless animals.  Are you killing animals because you support the oil industry by driving a car?  Look at how many humans are killed by cars.  Should driving a car, then, be considered inherently immoral?


hypocritical. you like this word and you apply it to all sauce.
can we stay on one subject at a time. lets not compare eating meat with using a car, with buying chinese product which controbute to the suffering of chinese. lets keep it one subject.
Im almost worried by your comprehension skills. 


You are not even interested in the matter, you just want to critic people in here


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I value plant life as well and I protect and be careful with plants. However, clearly a plant can less physically suffer then a animal. we already have had this discussion about plant suffering vs animal suffering and the consensus was that eating a fruit doesnt do any harm.
> 
> I dont drive a car, I have no license.
> hypocritical. you like this word and you apply it to all sauce.
> can we stay on one subject at a time. lets not compare eating meat with using a car, with buying chinese product which controbute to the suffering of chinese. lets keep it one subject.
> Im almost worried by your comprehension skills.
> 
> 
> You are not even interested in the matter, you just want to critic people in here



wow, dude, I can't call people hypocrites, but you can imply my stupidity?  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!


HOW COMPASSIONATE AND EMPATHETIC OF YOU!  MEDITATE ON THAT!

I will give you sufficient time to read this, but will start looking for a block button so I can start using it.


----------



## Ninae

Well, he wasn't without grounds to say that. But you're really stirring it here. Maybe keep the guidelines in mind or I can't see you posting here for much longer.


----------



## turkalurk

ok, lets keep to the subject and talk about my lack of comprehension skills, but I can't point out the hypocrisy of that? And, I am the one who lack comprehension skills because I don't understand how this is fair, balanced, and logically consistent?  Yes, I suppose I will get another scolding or a ban for posting off topic while the regulars can do worse and it goes unchecked by the mods.  Like I said, I welcome a ban.  If that's hiw this place operates(with blatant disregard for fairness and impartiality, then what would I be missing to be banned from this place?


----------



## swilow

This place is fair. You're just being silly now. Just relax dude


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> This place is fair. You're just being silly now. Just relax dude



argument from personal incredulity, no point is made, just a testament of personal opinion with no counter explaining how it is not hypocritical to censor and prohibit my criticisms of "hypocrisy or smugness or lack of empathy," but to allow other people on the same side of your argument to imply "a lack of comprehension skills, laziness, drunkiness, deceptively combatant, lack of integrity, lack of empathy, lack of caring, being silly, etc"


----------



## swilow

If you want to believe a website is against you, that's fine. 

You should read the rules.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> ok, lets keep to the subject and talk about my lack of comprehension skills



Nope.  Let's keep to the fucking subject and talk about vegetarianism. 

ebola


----------



## What 23

Today I ate organic applesauce and organic sprouted walnuts, organic hempseed oil, and organic DEAD VELOCIRAPTOR.


----------



## ebola?

Er...you ate petroleum products?

ebola


----------



## What 23

LOL... I didn't think about that.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It could have been from Jurrasic Park.


----------



## ebola?

Abject said:
			
		

> I'm still not understanding. Let's say grains contain x calories. Chickens and cows eat those grains. The produce will have 3 plant calories for each non-plant calorie, whereas the meat will have 10 plant calories for each non-plant calorie? If not I'm stumped, because I can't see how it could be that one requires more calories than the other, whether a chicken is just laying eggs or getting slaughtered it's gonna need the same amount of feed to grow.



That's not what I meant.  Imagine that you grow 20,000 kCal of wheat.  You alternately feed this in equal amounts to chickens who produce eggs and feed it to steer who produce beef.  You get 3,000 kCal worth of eggs and 1,000 kCal of beef.  This is what I meant by caloric ratios of 3:1 vs. 10:1.



			
				murphy said:
			
		

> half a cup of almond gives you almost the third of the intake of protein a men need per day, which is around 55g.



But what is optimal?  Some indications suggest that ~80 gm. is better (allowing for repair and muscle gain following aerobic exercise).  You'd need even more if you're trying to bulk up.  However, it's not hard to get 80 gm. / protein / day as a v-gun. . .



			
				FEA said:
			
		

> Veganism doesn't exist on that scale. You could argue that being vegan contributes indirectly to the suffering of all animals, by contributing to the suffering of the planet via other industries. But, you could say the same thing about driving a car or using the internet.



I would say that yes, we should include such behaviors.  Vegetarianism (including veganism) needn't dominate our ethical calculus (but it can, if we'd like).  I think such quantitative factors are relevant.  But otherwise, we might as well go with your average lacto-ovo vegetarian, whose diet is not dominated by eggs and dairy (at least in my observations).  And we should take into account that the increased caloric efficiency of eggs and dairy entail that a "serving" of egg or dairy represent a smaller proportion of that animal's life than a serving of meat.

ebola


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Vegetarianism (including veganism) needn't dominate our ethical calculus



I care more about the ethical implications of consuming animal products than I do about other issues.
But, I don't have a zero tolerance towards people consuming meat. It doesn't trump all other issues.
I just feel like it's totally unnecessary.

I'm not trying to equate vegetarianism with meat-eating in any way.
They're not even near each other, ethically.
But Veganism isn't near either of them.

If we arbitrarily assign values to vegetarianism and meat-eating, say 10 and 100 respectively, and we assign the value zero to veganism... you could argue that 10 is considerably closer to zero than it is to 100, but I think that's missing the point.

If you eat meat, but you eat it once a month, then your "value" might be less than the average vegetarian.
You said it depends on what kind of vegetarian you are. So it also depends on what kind of meat eater you are.

Being a vegetarian (as opposed to eating meat) is kind of like not eating pig meat (as opposed to eating all meat), in the sense that you're still consuming animal products but you're being selective about it.

Forgive me if I didn't totally understand what I'm responding to. I'm quite stoned and sometimes, I think, you write in relatively inaccessible terms. I can usually understand what you write, but it often takes a bit more work than with (most) other Bluelighters. What you write, generally, could be written in a way that is easier to digest for people who aren't accustomed to that sort of language (which is most of the population, I would imagine)... I imagine that many people, who are less educated than me, find it even more difficult to comprehend some of your posts (relative to other people's posts) when they are inebriated... I'm rambling, I apologize.


----------



## swilow

My girlfriend doesn't consume honey, but I do. 

Apparently it is innaproriate for a vegan...


----------



## Abject

ebola? said:


> That's not what I meant.  Imagine that you grow 20,000 kCal of wheat.  You alternately feed this in equal amounts to chickens who produce eggs and feed it to steer who produce beef.  You get 3,000 kCal worth of eggs and 1,000 kCal of beef.  This is what I meant by caloric ratios of 3:1 vs. 10:1.
> ebola



Eggs should be compared to dairy farms, chicken meat with beef/veal. Weight for weight, I'd like to see the credible source.

Also as far as protein goes 2.2g of protein per kg, or 1g per lb, is a good number to aim for daily. The leaner you are, the less you eat, the higher you should aim for. The fatter you are, the more you eat, the less you'll need.
I eat heaps of protein/meat because nothing can provide that sort of satiety and it's the best macro imo
We also need at least 1g of fat per kg, or .4g of fat per lb. Some of us do better on at least double that, as fat impacts the endocrine system and other hormone activity, but it's quite personal and circumstantial.
Carbs aren't essential.

Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.


----------



## Ninae

Abject said:


> Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.



You mean it would be inconvenient (which it is at first). But it's not illogical or necessarily unhealthy. Saying it's the easiest and most convenient way to eat and get all the nutrition you need is kind of obvious but that's not really what those who are opposed to it focus on.


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> Being a vegetarian (as opposed to eating meat) is kind of like not eating pig meat (as opposed to eating all meat), in the sense that you're still consuming animal products but you're being selective about it.



Sure, I'm happy to concede that lacto-ovo vegetarianism is more similar to omnivory than it is to veganism in this way, but this doesn't really discount my prior, more quantitatively oriented argument.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be evaluating ethicality in terms of some deontologial system, whereby one evaluates the validity of the maxims one choose to live by.  Instead, I am coming from a more utilitarian perspective (at least implicitly), where one must weigh sum harm and benefit wrought (even if quantification isn't wholly viable) mostly in terms of consequences.



> If you eat meat, but you eat it once a month, then your "value" might be less than the average vegetarian.



But not by much, at least per my scheme of evaluation.  And I'm okay with that. . .



> Forgive me if I didn't totally understand what I'm responding to. I'm quite stoned and sometimes, I think, you write in relatively inaccessible terms. I can usually understand what you write, but it often takes a bit more work than with (most) other Bluelighters. What you write, generally, could be written in a way that is easier to digest for people who aren't accustomed to that sort of language (which is most of the population, I would imagine)... I imagine that many people, who are less educated than me, find it even more difficult to comprehend some of your posts (relative to other people's posts) when they are inebriated... I'm rambling, I apologize.



No, you got it.


Sorry to have obfuscated.  Honestly, this is just kinda how I talk, which is just kinda how I think.  I'm doing this for fun, so I didn't put a great deal of effort into translating myself.  Honestly, it's kind of pretentious to assume that your audience can't understand your language because it's too advanced, and then translate yourself based on these assumptions.  I also don't trust these assumptions.  Thus, I find it easier to just let people ask questions / for clarification.




			
				Abject said:
			
		

> Eggs should be compared to dairy farms, chicken meat with beef/veal. Weight for weight, I'd like to see the credible source.



Er...I think that you misunderstood the purpose underlying my argument.  I was talking primarily about raw efficiency in terms of energy (we should think of the proportion of the sun's energy input into the food chain involved in agricultural production that makes it into our mouths), and in terms of how many people can be fed at a given energy input with different types of foods.  I was not speaking from a health standpoint.





> Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.



Well, most people are happier to eat carbs than you, so plant sources of protein should be put up for comparison.  However, none of this invalidates your health based arguments.  I personally think that you recommend a great deal more protein than is needed or even optimal, but I also think the dietary science doesn't yet have a good grasp on this particular dynamic, so who knows.

ebola


----------



## jemery

I have considered the whole vegetarian thing. I know that I could do it. People say "but watta bout the iron and the protein crap u need?" I've met one gent who is vegan but is quite sickly(i think he is on the verg of an eatin disorder) Yet others who have a nice balanced look about them. I'm not against eating meat. God placed these things in our midst when other nutrients are not available. But sadly we live in a world where things are tooooo available ALLLL the time. this is the problem.


----------



## Ninae

I've been a vegetarian for 13 years this summer so I can almost have a litte anniversary. But I've had regular blood samples taken and the only thing I've come out deficient in is iron (because I haven't taken iron supplements).


----------



## ebola?

Me too, actually (14 years as of January).  I haven't noticed any health differences transitioning to vegetarianism, to veganism (and to omnivory and back, on account of having moved to Korea).  I haven't noticed any differences in health among these diets, except I ate a far greater volume of food as a vegan (to compensate for reduced caloric density).  It was fun.  Eating food is great, so eating more of it increases your sum daily hedonism.  I did gain a good bit of weight in Korea, but I also had an injury that reduced (well, temporarily eliminated) exercise (I usually bike 6-12 hours / week).

To anyone doubting, you can change your diet.  The human body is extremely flexible.

ebola


----------



## Ninae

The healthiest time of my life was when I lived as a health-freak for a year. I juiced a lot and ate a lot of fruit and vegetable salads. Every morning for breakfast I used to juice 3 oranges and make a blend of cottage cheese (which is rich in amino acids), chopped banana, ground up nuts, seeds, and grain, and berries or some other kind of citrus (and drink lemon/honey in hot water first). 

I would also take all the supplements I needed, like certain amino acids that are precursors to important neuro-transmittors, and 5-htp. So I would sometimes doze off from a Serotin-high after I had breakfast. It was a lot of work but it was worth it, I had lots of energy.

But living as a vegetarian health freak is definitely much better than the average diet that includes meat.


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 





> Honestly, it's kind of pretentious to assume that your audience can't understand your language because it's too advanced, and then translate yourself based on these assumptions. I also don't trust these assumptions. Thus, I find it easier to just let people ask questions / for clarification.



Fair enough. I don't think it's pretentious. It's more a question of efficiency... Hemingway wrote with increasingly simple language as his body of work developed... On the contrary, it might be more pretentious to use unnecessarily high-tier vocab when your point can be expressed with more common language. Some terms don't have a simple alternative, so "advanced" language might be unavoidable in those situations... But, more often than not, what you're expressing can be done in a way that is easily digestible to the layman.

It's not that I can't understand your language because it's too advanced... More that it appears more advanced than it is and - although it might sound ignorant - I couldn't be bothered learning long academic synonyms for perfectly functional words that don't need to be replaced... I studied writing and there were a lot of people who did linguistic acrobatics due to the expectation that "true/worthy literature" consists of sophisticated language. In the end, I decided I'd rather have a wider audience. It is more challenging - I think - to attempt to simplify what you're trying to say as much as possible without losing the meaning...

Of course, if you simplify too much you're likely to lose (some of) the "sophisticated" audience.
But, personally, if I write something for publication, I'd rather it be understood by the masses.




^O/T...



> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be evaluating ethicality in terms of some deontologial system, whereby one evaluates the validity of the maxims one choose to live by. Instead, I am coming from a more utilitarian perspective (at least implicitly), where one must weigh sum harm and benefit wrought (even if quantification isn't wholly viable) mostly in terms of consequences.



This is a perfect example. I couldn't be bothered looking up words in order to understand what you're saying. I don't know what deontological means. Most people don't... And, while it would probably take me less time to look it up then it did to write this part of my response, I'd rather not introduce it into my vocabulary because I don't want to distance myself - intellectually, or otherwise - from the common man... (also, honestly, I just couldn't be bothered... like I don't bother looking up the meaning of internet acronym slang)

I think I understand what you're saying, here, anyway, and - assuming I do understand it - it could be expressed in a simpler more efficient way... Similarly, efficient mathematics shouldn't involve any unnecessary terms. (Less is more.) Anyway:

This thread is about whether or not it is ethically wrong to consume animal products... So, yes, that's what I'm discussing... Whereas you seem to be justifying (what you admit is) unethical behavior by comparing it, in relative terms, to your neighbor?

If so, was morality/ethicality different during the holocaust?
Isn't justifying unethical behavior by means of comparison dangerous?

I mean everything is relative, right? Without comparing yourself, by implication, to people who contribute more suffering upon animals, how can you justify your behavior?

If something is wrong it is wrong, isn't it?
How does a (relatively) "small amount of wrong" become a right?


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> It's more a question of efficiency.



To me it is as well though.  I choose those words that get my meaning across in the fewest syllables possible.  Often, this involves the use of less common terms or more complex syntactic patterns.  Phrasing otherwise might actually make my prose _more_ cumbersome.

ebola


----------



## ForEverAfter

But it isn't practically efficient if you're using terms that most people aren't familiar with, regardless of syllabic efficiency... I edited my post, above. Please respond to the comments towards the end of the post about ethics (if you're so inclined).


----------



## sekio

In this day and age where you can literally find the definitions of words without getting out of your seat, there's no reason to take exception to people using big words if they'd like to.
(Philosophy is not the venue to pander to the lazy unwashed masses, either. Big words should feel at home here, of all places.)


----------



## Abject

ebola? said:


> Er...I think that you misunderstood the purpose underlying my argument.  I was talking primarily about raw efficiency in terms of energy (we should think of the proportion of the sun's energy input into the food chain involved in agricultural production that makes it into our mouths), and in terms of how many people can be fed at a given energy input with different types of foods.  I was not speaking from a health standpoint.
> 
> Well, most people are happier to eat carbs than you, so plant sources of protein should be put up for comparison.  However, none of this invalidates your health based arguments.  I personally think that you recommend a great deal more protein than is needed or even optimal, but I also think the dietary science doesn't yet have a good grasp on this particular dynamic, so who knows.
> 
> ebola



You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were, but you also misunderstood my point. You said meat is less effective than dairy/eggs (which I originally misunderstood) and now I am saying a dairy farm would require a different level of calories than an egg farm (balanced out for the weight of produce) and to say 10:1 for meat seems very illegitimate to me as the amount of energy required to raise veal to adult cows, or comparing chickens with cows (weight for weight) i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.

Furthermore, it's not that I'm unhappy to eat carbs, it's that it would be impossible for me to do anything but gain weight on a vegan diet. To live off carbs would leave me constantly hungry and deprived of large amounts of either fat or protein. As for recommending too much protein (or dietary fat) all my numbers are backed up so feel free to look into basic nutrition requirements. As I said if you have a higher BF%, sit on your ass all day, and eat a higher calorie diet, your needs for protein are much less than that of the skinny mexican trimming your yard.
There are many things dietary science doesn't understand, but the benefits of higher protein diets is too obvious to misinterpret. The hormonal deficiencies in a low fat diet are too obvious to misinterpret. You take away carbs and ketosis is pretty kind on the body.
I don't care what other people do with their bodies, they can eat all the transfats and sugar and meth they want, but I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal. I've seen few people eat healthy vegan diets, most trick themselves into thinking they're eating positively when they're not getting all the nutrients they should be. I mean I can think of examples where veganism is actually better than a logical diet, but only because of the high calories and psychological effect (not from the nutrients in the food, but the diet itself, idk how to explain it)
I feel if humans weren't to be omnivores we'd function much healthier as carnivores than herbivores.


----------



## murphythecat

Abject said:


> You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were, but you also misunderstood my point. You said meat is less effective than dairy/eggs (which I originally misunderstood) and now I am saying a dairy farm would require a different level of calories (balanced out for the weight of milk compared to eggs) and to say 10:1 for meat seems very illegitimate to me as the amount of energy required to raise veal to adult cows, or comparing chickens with cows (weight for weight) i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.
> It's not that I'm unhappy to eat carbs, it's that it would be impossible for me to do anything but gain weight on a vegan diet. As for recommending too much protein (or dietary fat) all my numbers are backed up so feel free to look into basic nutrition requirements. There are many things dietary science doesn't understand, but the benefits of higher protein diets is too obvious to misinterpret.



like everything, moderation is key. seeds and nuts in moderate quantities are great: note that you can eat as many Macadamia nuts as you want but not almond. cheese and tofu also moderately.
but eggs and beans, lentils, barley are food that you can eat as much as you want and will, in combination, gives you enough protein


----------



## ForEverAfter

> In this day and age where you can literally find the definitions of words without getting out of your seat, there's no reason to take exception to people using big words if they'd like to. (Philosophy is not the venue to pander to the lazy unwashed masses, either. Big words should feel at home here, of all places.)



It doesn't bother me, particularly. I'd just - honestly - rather have conversations in regular English. Philosophy is for the "lazy unwashed masses" as much as it is for the academic and this is a public forum. If ebola wants to continue using relatively inaccessible language, that's fine, but it restricts his/her audience. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything. I hesitated, for good reason I suppose, and then I went ahead and posted it anyway...

Sure people can look up words on the internet. People can look up words on their phones during verbal conversations, also, but they are unlikely to... The expectation that people should be ready to educate themselves mid-conversation is unrealistic and having to do so is a little tiresome.

Like I said, it makes sense to use "big words" when they're necessary.
Otherwise, it comes across (to me) as a little gratuitous.

Let's just pretend I didn't say anything.
I didn't mean any offence and I can see this is falling on deaf ears.

Perhaps, I'm crazy.

[/Off Topic]


----------



## swilow

^If so, its a good crazy 



			
				Abject said:
			
		

> I don't care what other people do with their bodies, they can eat all the transfats and sugar and meth they want, but I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal. I've seen few people eat healthy vegan diets, most trick themselves into thinking they're eating positively when they're not getting all the nutrients they should be.



I often feel wary when I hear people describing what "most" of a sub-group do. I mean, unless you've conducted a broad survey of vegans, I'm not sure you have grounds for such a statement. I don't know heaps of vegans, but the ones I know (and I include myself) have been able to supply ourselves with what we need, and in true style . My closest friend is a vegan and the healithiest dude I know. Proves nothing, just that- IME- most vegans are healthier then most meat eaters. The capacity for healthiness as a quality is equal amongst both groups; such has been my experience. Again though, I often feel wary when I hear people describing what "most" of a sub-group do. 

Its harder to eat a complete diet as a vegan; its easier to eat meat. I think this statement is probably true. I said earlier that 'easiness' is perhaps not the best basis for an ethical decision. Because something is more difficult then something else doesn't actually say anything about either somethings  Both diets have positives and both have negatives. For _most_ vegans, the difficult ethical choices of meat-eating make being a vegan substantially easier then the alternative. 

Veganism does fail the fabled "post-apocalypse test scenario" in that, when the dead rise, I am pretty sure veganism will fall. I imagine that veganism, as a viable dietary choice, is only possible in 'civilised' society. I'm not sure if there was much of a vegan movement during the Victorian era, or during the Roman empire. I think that now, because we can safely and healthily be vegans, we have little reason not to. That is, of course, my sole opinion. I'm not sure we can really reflect on the grandeur of our civilisation whilst we sustain our bodies in unsustainable ways. An advanced society would always take tomorrow into account, and modern farming/agriculture simply doesn't do that properly.


----------



## Ninae

Vegetarianism or Veganism is mostly an emotional/ethical or health-freak decision. If someone has none of those feelings they're not likely to have much enthusiasm for it. But it's not exactly right to say because something is easier or more efficient it's the intellectually superior thing to do. There are enough intelligent reasons not to, but most haven't looked into it so much, or don't even want to believe it.


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> This thread is about whether or not it is ethically wrong to consume animal products... So, yes, that's what I'm discussing... Whereas you seem to be justifying (what you admit is) unethical behavior by comparing it, in relative terms, to your neighbor?



This wasn't what I meant at all; sorry for being unclear.  What I meant is that we seem to be reaching slightly different conclusions because we use different systems to anchor our ethical judgments.  Namely, you appeared to be working in terms of the question of how to generate valid ethical rules with which to guide decisions, primarily in terms of categorical judgments (as to whether you're influenced by Kant's work, thus oriented toward the goal of logically valid universalization of said rules, or moreso by others, is as of yet unclear), whereas in that instance, I was using a more utilitarian type argument.

I should note that my ethical system of choice is open and unfinished: I haven't really been happy with any ethical system that I've run into thus far, though I am somewhat satisfied with the vague direction the American Pragmatists go.  I should also note that I think that veganism is ethically superior to lacto-ovo vegetarianism, so we disagree on a very minor point.



> If ebola wants to continue using relatively inaccessible language



Okay.  I guess one challenge is that I actually don't know with a great deal of accuracy or precision what words other people do and do not know.  It's also problematic that there is some specific philosophical jargon that also tends to drastically increase efficiency of communication.



			
				Abject said:
			
		

> You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were



I'm honestly running out of ways to explain this.  Do you recall my example about growing 20k kCal worth of crops?  Did it make sense to you?  To revisit it, The whole point is to look at what proportion of calories present within plants used to feed animals makes it to usable muscle and organ mass used as food by humans (yes, this includes hot dogs, etc.).  With eggs, this is typically one third (milk is similar), but with adult steer, this is one tenth.  Eating plants directly, 100 percent of the plant calories are used for food, so the ratio is 1:1 (for what should be obvious reasons).  I should also note that only one tenth or so of the energy falling on wheat is converted into energy stored in starch.

Securing sufficient micronutrients really involves a drastically lower volume of crops compared to those we use primarily as caloric sources (think of the total amount of leafy greens we grow compared to the total amount of corn we grow, for example), and omnivores still need to eat these crops we grow primarily for micronutrients (pretty much any healthy diet involves a lot of non-starchy fruits and veggies).  Thus, nutritional superiority has little bearing on energy-efficiency.



> i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.



You're entirely correct.  The ratio is roughly 3-4:10 for chicken meat.  The 10:1 figure was specific to adult steers.  I have no idea what it would be for veal.



> I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal.



Well, I've had good luck, though I get a lot of exercise, so I actually burn through about 800+ kCal / day working out; I use up those carbs and really need them to perform decently.

ebola


----------



## ebola?

Ninae said:
			
		

> If someone has none of those feelings they're not likely to have much enthusiasm for it.



I pretty much made the decision on the basis of cold introspection and logical inference; meat still isn't gross to me, and I don't feel particularly deeply empathetic.  However, it took a profoundly empathetic experience induced by MDMA to push me in this direction in the first place. . .

ebola


----------



## Ninae

Meat and the idea of eating animals is gross to me and I think those "kinder-garden reasons" are morally superior to what a desentised jaded adult feels.


----------



## ebola?

I'm not saying that my path is superior.  If anything, it's ass-backwards (involving use of cold logic to wander back toward empathy which would function better more directly).

ebola


----------



## Ninae

I don't know how it's such a big deal. Once I decided it was a bad idea my sisters also decided as we all loved animals. And that was that. Now one of my sisters has two small daughters and they get nearly only vegetarian food (their dad isn't a vegetarian). But when they grow up they will find the idea that you can't subside on vegetarian food hilarious. 

It's mostly cultural/habit doctrinated. That's what's sad about it.


----------



## murphythecat

Ninae said:


> It's mostly cultural/habit doctrinated. That's what's sad about it.


yep, and in our occidental society, forget about it to ask for empathy for animals. hell, even empathy for our fellow human companion is too much to ask. 

do what feels best for you and for your heart, its very sad, but people will still buy animal fur, eat meat ect. theres nothing we can do but change ourselves and hopefully people will take example.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> Nope.  Let's keep to the fucking subject and talk about vegetarianism.
> 
> ebola


 Thanks for banning me.  Personally, I don't care what you eat.  I think meat is delicious and will continue to devour varying species of the world's animals.  If I wanted to get more ethical with my food choices, I'd start hunting deer and wild overpopulated/envasive game, before I'd go vegetarian!



murphythecat said:


> can we stay on one subject at a time.
> 
> Im almost worried by your comprehension skills.


----------



## What 23

*invasive


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> *invasive


Want me to start correcting your puncuation?  If I cared about shit like that, I'd use a word processor or spell check.  If I cared about spelling, I would also care about using commas where I ought to use them.  I don't know what your intent is with correcting a spelling that makes no difference in determining the meaning of the word.  But, I am quite sure it has nothing to do with vegetarianism and distrupts the flow of conversation.  Funny, Ebola accuses me of baiting people.


----------



## ebola?

I'll give you that what 23's comment was an irrelevant snipe, but your reaction was a good bit more disruptive than his comment; you really didn't have to write out a full paragraph explaining your rationale behind allowance of spelling mistakes (and I suspect such wouldn't have been necessary if you truly cared as little as you purport).

Anyway, carry on. . . 

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> I'll give you that what 23's comment was an irrelevant snipe, but your reaction was a good bit more disruptive than his comment; you really didn't have to write out a full paragraph explaining your rationale behind allowance of spelling mistakes (and I suspect such wouldn't have been necessary if you truly cared as little as you purport).
> 
> 
> Anyway, carry on. . .
> 
> ebola



wow, I will take your paragraph as your own little snipe.  Way to get the conversation on track with further bait.  Very adult of you.

Yes, if you have read my posts and think I cared about spelling, then you are delusional.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> I pretty much made the decision on the basis of cold introspection and logical inference; meat still isn't gross to me, and I don't feel particularly deeply empathetic.  However, it took a profoundly empathetic experience induced by MDMA to push me in this direction in the first place. . .
> 
> ebola



I am starting to notice a common theme in my opposition.  Things are starting to make sense.  Maybe if I took enough shrooms I would become emotionally disturbed with the food I eat as well!


----------



## What 23

I just wanted to say something because it looks dumb. 

^Intentionally written that way.

It is just something I have stumbled reading multiple times. Envasive at the speed I read, capturing snapshots of entire words as pictures like many do when they read, looks a lot like _evasive_ and it causes me to look and look again when it isn't really needed. If it was a big word and used correctly repeatedly that would be different. It would be an education. Your repeated error just slows someone down. But at least it is entertaining! Huntin' down evasive species!  Squirrels!

I know you've been begging to get banned, citing your lack of self control. I've been there too. I asked to be banned for the same reasons. Not that I thought I couldn't control it but having them shut the door could give me incentive to walk away. "Fuck you too". They didn't do that, and one told me that they felt I contributed some. I'm going to tell you the same. I've enjoyed your posts and value your thoughts. We need more like you. But try to cool down. I haven't been attacking you or coming in against you in any way. My comment was at least partially in fun.


----------



## ebola?

turk said:
			
		

> wow, I will take your paragraph as your own little snipe. Way to get the conversation on track with further bait. Very adult of you.



(yes...I noticed the above as I typed it) Okay.  Next time I will go straight to infracting you then?  I don't know what you want here. . .




> I am starting to notice a common theme in my opposition. Things are starting to make sense. Maybe if I took enough shrooms I would become emotionally disturbed with the food I eat as well!



You know, most of the omnivores involved in this discussion are pretty into drugs too. 

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> (yes...I noticed the above as I typed it) Okay.  Next time I will go straight to infracting you then?  I don't know what you want here. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, most of the omnivores involved in this discussion are pretty into drugs too.
> 
> ebola



How about we talk about vegetarianism?  I mean really?  Next time I try to veer the conversation back on track you ought to infract me?  If nothing else, at least you gave me a good chuckle.  Its becoming quite apparent that you would take issue with about any way that I posted.


----------



## What 23

ebola? said:


> I'll give you that what 23's comment was an irrelevant snipe,
> ebola



When I was a wee lad, I was told to hunt an evasive species of bird called a snipe. I hit a paper bag with a stick (the tools for hunting snipes, so I was told) for an hour in the woods until I was told the snipes didn't exist. I'm not sure what relevance that the snipe, or non existence of snipes had.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> I just wanted to say something because it looks dumb.
> 
> ^Intentionally written that way.
> 
> It is just something I have stumbled reading multiple times. Envasive at the speed I read, capturing snapshots of entire words as pictures like many do when they read, looks a lot like _evasive_ and it causes me to look and look again when it isn't really needed. If it was a big word and used correctly repeatedly that would be different. It would be an education. Your repeated error just slows someone down. But at least it is entertaining! Huntin' down evasive species!  Squirrels!
> 
> I know you've been begging to get banned, citing your lack of self control. I've been there too. I asked to be banned for the same reasons. Not that I thought I couldn't control it but having them shut the door could give me incentive to walk away. "Fuck you too". They didn't do that, and one told me that they felt I contributed some. I'm going to tell you the same. I've enjoyed your posts and value your thoughts. We need more like you. But try to cool down. I haven't been attacking you or coming in against you in any way. My comment was at least partially in fun.



No hard feelings, but I think this place is upsetting.  It reminds me of fighting with my junkie brother and his stupid rationalizations said as if they were grounded in logic that wasn't completely fallacious.  I actually came here because I am trying to help him overcome his heroin problem.  Apparently, there is little help you can offer to an addict of that nature.  

Sorry I get so lazy with my typing.  I type on a cell phone and I don't want to waste any more time than I am already.  I better hurry and post this before Ebola bans me for the last time.  I figure a week should be enough time to forget about this place entirely.


----------



## What 23

Sorry about your brother. My hometown is dealing with a heroin problem. I don't know anyone directly but many I know are directly connected with people who are addicted, have overdosed, or have died. 

I don't mean to come off the way I did, though. I was being an ass. Your spelling and grammar are fine. I just stumbled on that word and it wasn't the first time.


----------



## turkalurk

probably because the prefix "en" and the prefix "in" are not only homophones, but can also mean the same thing.  My fingers are usually way behind so I can't be bothered to think about the spelling of a word I haven't used in 10 years, or to proofread.  If my thumb hits too high on the key pad I scramble things up sometimes without realizing it.  I imagine I can look half retarded at times, but with the way things are, I might as well be passing gas anyway.  We've all made our decisions long ago, "reason is just a slave to the passions."-Hume?


----------



## What 23

I do it too. And I tend to like girls who misspell things... Going off of sound. Like one that said she is a movie cridic. 

Actually doing so, spelling words differently can indicate creativity, too, possibly (guessing, taking a shot, no evidence to report though). Unconventional thought. Taking alternative routes.


----------



## turkalurk

Had to look the Hume quote up, to make sure it was him.  I found this which I thought it was kind of relevant to how I view ethics.  

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/186




> You can apply this quotation in many different contexts as far as Hume's thought is concerned - in general I think the best way to read it is as an outgrowth of his radical empiricism which in the case of ethics descends into his famous advocacy of emotivism. The point is that reason will never reach out into the world - the passions are what we get when the world reaches into us. And therefore, reason will never be able to control them or understand them because they (the passions/sensations/impressions) are the raw materials of reason. So here are some ways to understand this general tendency, as expressed in the famous maxim you quote:
> 
> Emotivism in Ethics: Reason cannot enter into our ethical judgements because these judgements are based on sentiments (i.e. passions.) An act of cruelty will cause in us a feeling of injustice, and that feeling (sentiment/passion) will be the reason why we pass an unfavourable judgement on an act of cruelty. This is the polar opposite of a Kantian view of ethical judgements to which one arrives at by pure a priori reasoning.
> Taste in Aesthetics: Here the situation is more complicated. Hume admits that beauty can only ever be as it were 'in the eye of the beholder' because beauty cannot be in the object but must be wholly contained in the pleasurable sentiment it causes us. Indeed Hume explicitly states that pleasure is the essence of beauty (we define as beautiful that which gives us pleasurable sensations.) So here you see that reason will always be a slave of the passions, i.e. you will never be able to rationally convince your friend who thinks artworks by Dali are ugly that they are, in fact, beautiful. Nevertheless in On the Standard of Taste Hume tries to argue that there are in fact some objective aesthetic standards, by urging us to heed the advice of ideal critics which he goes on to define (i.e. critics possessed of a delicacy of taste, and sound understanding, sharpened by practice and comparison and who are free from prejudice.)
> Self and Causation: Hume also famously argued that there is no such thing as direct causation, only observable regularities; and that there is no indestructible self, only impressions which we call our own. If you take passions to include sensations of hot or cold or sense impressions, then you can interpret the maxim that reason will always be a slave to such passions as a further advocacy of this type of empiricism or anti-realism. The latter (anti-realism) in the sense that there are no shared constraints that ever effectively decide such questions as 'Am I here?' or 'Is this colder than this?'



I've always like Hume.  Reminds me of Buddism to an extent.


----------



## Journyman16

OT - snipe is a type of bird - I think there's a number of differing ones. But being told to hunt snipe is a different thing, it's a hunt for the impossible, sometimes used on noobs in a job and sometimes just to get someone to go away. (Hey apprentice, go get me a left hand screwdriver! :D)

Smelling pistakes can be annoying when there are many of them. Everyone typos once in a while and that's what spell check is for. Worse are grammar mistakes because they can alter the whole meaning of a phrase or sentence. But online, mentioning them tends to get wild accusations of 'grammar nazi' or worse. I am unsure why people think it is OK not to be able to properly use their language (ESL folk aside ) but it seems to bring virulent reactions. I'd put it down to bad teaching where students got chastised for incorrect spelling etc. but to be honest, schools just aren't that particular anymore and I doubt more than maybe 10% of teachers would pass an 8th grade (form 3) spelling test in my day.

Interestingly if we read through this thread we can see similar reactions from both sides. I am unsure what it is about the modern world that makes us so ready to jump into black or white groupings, unless it is the training we get in school and society where TPTB, the MSM and the education system all try to teach us that is how to view the universe.

There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian who eats meat occasionally, or a carnivore who takes a break for a vegan diet every now and then. If fact, if you think it through, such eating patterns are what we developed as a species on. When meat was available we would feast, because it spoiled quickly. When it wasn't we'd vegan with the best of them. :D

One worry is how bad our diet appears to be compared to ancient history - there are very few ancient myths that do NOT contain tales of people who lived much longer than we do. Even the bible has 900 year olds in the early days. Noah was 600+ when he built the ark. It seems something changed and my suspicions point at grains.

Wheat, rice and corn are all staples, all unusual genetically and all came from the misty time before our carefully doctored history, but only JUST before. We might suppose early man developed them but the problems come in how such people could have bred in properties that were not present in the original species.

So were I to decide to go vegetarian, I would be looking for a diet with no grains.

And reason doesn't have to be a slave to passions, and in a truly sane wo/man, I think it would be that passions are grist for the mill of reason. :D


----------



## Abject

lol page 40
can i bring up the underpaid immigrant/minority workers who pick vegetables/fruit? the meat industry is much kinder to it's workers than plant farming
veganism is almost classist/racist imo, if only by systems larger than the consumer


----------



## swilow

Veganism is not racist dude. Long fucken bow there methinks


----------



## ebola?

abject said:
			
		

> can i bring up the underpaid immigrant/minority workers who pick vegetables/fruit? the meat industry is much kinder to it's workers than plant farming
> veganism is almost classist/racist imo, if only by systems larger than the consumer



Ummm...Animals eat mostly feed that we farm.  Due to the caloric inefficiency I was talking about, consuming meat will involve proportionally more exploitation of agricultural workers.  Besides, work in slaughterhouses or other stages of industrial farming isn't too pleasant either (IIRC, _Fast Food Nation_ has a chapter that details this well).

ebola


----------



## Abject

ebola? said:


> Ummm...Animals eat mostly feed that we farm.  Due to the caloric inefficiency I was talking about, consuming meat will involve proportionally more exploitation of agricultural workers.  Besides, work in slaughterhouses or other stages of industrial farming isn't too pleasant either (IIRC, _Fast Food Nation_ has a chapter that details this well).
> 
> ebola



I never said the work was pleasant, I said it paid better than workers that pick fruit/vegetables.
Getting grain is all done with man-driven machinery, not manpower itself, unlike fruit.

If people who pick produce are predominately minorities, and the whole field is underpaid, what does it take for something to be racist?
Unless you can explain how it's not racist, buying more of that produce and less from other industries is indeed supporting a racist system.
-
Just like healthcare is sexist, not because the disabled hate women but because the field is made up primarily of women and the entire industry is underpaid.
People don't choose to become disabled and create a higher demand for that industry, though.
Understand what I'm saying a bit clearer now?


----------



## What 23

I heard about quinoa as well (speaking of conditions for peoples) some years back... It was making life hard for people who normally ate it, increasing demand or something-I forget. And all the vegans/vegetarians/foodies were driving it. I ate it daily, almost exclusively, for some time... Until my skin started turning blue and I almost fainted driving. That was when I found hemp seeds, and felt absolutely great eating them.


----------



## turkalurk

Journyman16 said:


> OT - snipe is a type of bird - I think there's a number of differing ones. But being told to hunt snipe is a different thing, it's a hunt for the impossible, sometimes used on noobs in a job and sometimes just to get someone to go away. (Hey apprentice, go get me a left hand screwdriver! :D)
> 
> Smelling pistakes can be annoying when there are many of them. Everyone typos once in a while and that's what spell check is for. Worse are grammar mistakes because they can alter the whole meaning of a phrase or sentence. But online, mentioning them tends to get wild accusations of 'grammar nazi' or worse. I am unsure why people think it is OK not to be able to properly use their language (ESL folk aside ) but it seems to bring virulent reactions. I'd put it down to bad teaching where students got chastised for incorrect spelling etc. but to be honest, schools just aren't that particular anymore and I doubt more than maybe 10% of teachers would pass an 8th grade (form 3) spelling test in my day.
> 
> Interestingly if we read through this thread we can see similar reactions from both sides. I am unsure what it is about the modern world that makes us so ready to jump into black or white groupings, unless it is the training we get in school and society where TPTB, the MSM and the education system all try to teach us that is how to view the universe.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian who eats meat occasionally, or a carnivore who takes a break for a vegan diet every now and then. If fact, if you think it through, such eating patterns are what we developed as a species on. When meat was available we would feast, because it spoiled quickly. When it wasn't we'd vegan with the best of them. :D
> 
> One worry is how bad our diet appears to be compared to ancient history - there are very few ancient myths that do NOT contain tales of people who lived much longer than we do. Even the bible has 900 year olds in the early days. Noah was 600+ when he built the ark. It seems something changed and my suspicions point at grains.
> 
> Wheat, rice and corn are all staples, all unusual genetically and all came from the misty time before our carefully doctored history, but only JUST before. We might suppose early man developed them but the problems come in how such people could have bred in properties that were not present in the original species.
> 
> So were I to decide to go vegetarian, I would be looking for a diet with no grains.
> 
> And reason doesn't have to be a slave to passions, and in a truly sane wo/man, I think it would be that passions are grist for the mill of reason. :D



Proper puncuation is also part of grammar.  Do you think this post is properly puncuated?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Punctuation Nazi!


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Punctuation Nazi!


I know, right?  If this was a formal platform, then there would be more formal styles of writing.  I don't care how you write, as long as I can understand the gist of what you mean.   All those extra seconds it takes to proofread add up.  Of course, I was just making an observation, because he suggested that, not only spelling, but grammar is important as well...blah...blah...blah


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yeah, I totally agree man. What you post on forums like this shouldn't have to live up to publication standards. Unless you correct proper sentence structure during verbal conversations with drunk people, it doesn't make any sense to do it here. Sometimes (rarely, these days) I'm totally fucked off my head while posting on Bluelight... though, even when I'm not, I don't expect to have to conform to anybody else's formatting standards. There are a lot of Bluelighters that have developed their own distinct style, sometimes blending poetry with prose or omitting punctuation all together... It's all good, as long as it can be reasonably understood (IMO)...


----------



## swilow

All this because what23 wrote *invasive. :D



Abject said:


> If people who pick produce are predominately minorities, and the whole field is underpaid, what does it take for something to be racist?
> Unless you can explain how it's not racist, buying more of that produce and less from other industries is indeed supporting a racist system.



I feel like this is one of the more absurd things said in this thread. I should point out, I'm Australian, so exist in a different context to what you are describing (I think). I simply do not know what you mean though. Are you saying that buying produce is racist because it creates and sustains an underclass of workers or do you mean it is a positive racial bias for vegans to purchase from migrants? "Immigrant" and "Minority workers" are not races. They are usually of broadly mixed origin. But you are correct in describing the way wealthy countries often exploit other ethnic groups and it could be seen as  discriminatory at least.

I don't know if you have any evidence that meat workers are treated better then produce workers, but I would be interested in that. Even if that is the case, is it really vegans responsible for creating this situation or is the billions of other humans who also eat vegetables as well as meat? I would have to say the latter, through weight of numbers. By your logic, it would seem that the overwhelming majority of omnivores are creating this class divide and not only vegans, but I just think the notion is unfounded. We are talking about capitalism now (of which I am hugely sceptical) that results in people working hard and getting paid nothing and this is seen globally in many industries. This is not saying it is okay or acceptable, just that it is really not connected to veganism.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> All this because what23 wrote *invasive.



Or, because I mispelled the word invasive.  It depends on how you look at it.  Maybe, all this is because you decided to write a thread condusive to ethical gloating about food choices.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> I think meat is delicious and will continue to devour varying species of the world's animals.  If I wanted to get more ethical with my food choices, I'd start hunting deer and wild overpopulated/envasive game, before I'd go vegetarian!



This is what tends to come out when someone has used up all their justifications. It's not so hard to understand why someoen would prefer to keep eating meat but does it being delicious really justify it?


----------



## Ninae

Abject said:


> veganism is almost classist/racist imo, if only by systems larger than the consumer



Veganism is a lifestyle lived to support other species so it's closer to the opposite of racism. Though there is a form of divide between vegans/vegetarians and meat-eaters but it's mostly meat-eaters who are freaked out by the strangeness of it and what they can see as an implied criticism towards themselves.

So many seem to have an instinct to establish themselves as superior as possible. Although my doctor didn't react that way when I quit eating meat, he said "It's very healthy what you're doing". But people just exaggerrate the perceived judgement from vegetarians who tend to be cool about it as, after all, most eat meat and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not like I even bother commenting about it in normal life but a discussion like this is a bit different.


----------



## Erikmen

I don't think people are "freaked out" by strangeness. Exaggerating does not make your point any more valid.
I do agree with Abject though, vegans are a minority and a lit elitist imo, to say the least.


----------



## Ninae

I was freaked out by vegetarians before I began to consider it as an option. It was all I had ever known.


----------



## Erikmen

Of course you were Ninae, as you also claim to be from a superior kingdom of Angels. I'm talking about people in general. I don't think vegetarians are strange, just different maybe.


----------



## Ninae

What are you trying to bait me for? I'm not interested in arguing with you and it's getting annoying. You took something I said the wrong way and now you can't get over it.

I said I was freaked out as I became a vegetarian as a teenager and it's normal for kids to be freaked out when they're confronted with lifestyles that are very different from what they've always known.


----------



## Erikmen

Neither am I. Yes kids don't like to be confronted with different lifestyle like vegetarians and some of them don't even want to try because they are not familiar with the routine.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> This is what tends to come out when someone has used up all their justifications. It's not so hard to understand why someoen would prefer to keep eating meat but does it being delicious really justify it?



I wasn't aware that it is necessary to justify my natural Human diet.


----------



## Erikmen

Of course turkalurk!
I really don't think you have to.


----------



## Ninae

Actually my sister has two young daughters who are being raised mostly vegetarian. Or, their dad eats meat so they can choose, and they do like meat, but my sister makes most of the food, and they're free to decide for themselves when they grow up. 

But the idea that you can't sustain yourself on vegetarian food will be hilarious to them. It's interesting, but we're getting a few kids like that now. It shows just one person's initative can create some changes.


----------



## murphythecat

we cannot argue like that. we can only look at one situation at a time. nobody is saying that eating veggies and fruit is perfectly without consequence. I care about the million of animal we kill every year, how it affect the environments and how much suffering those animals endure for our own benefit.

about the racist, very interesting. meat eaters are the racist one thinking its okay to kill and create suffering in a ''different'' species (animals) just like racist convinced themselves that black were inferior to white and so it was okay to use them, make them slave and create suffering to them.


Abject said:


> lol page 40
> can i bring up the underpaid immigrant/minority workers who pick vegetables/fruit? the meat industry is much kinder to it's workers than plant farming
> veganism is almost classist/racist imo, if only by systems larger than the consumer


----------



## Xorkoth

turkalurk said:


> Or, because I mispelled the word invasive.  It depends on how you look at it.  Maybe, all this is because you decided to write a thread condusive to ethical gloating about food choices.



Though ethical gloating has gone on in this thread at various times, I haven't seen willow behaving that way.  He wrote a thread wanting to start a discussion about the ethics of veganism and vegetarianism.  The desire to discuss this topic does not equal gloating about it.  It's not his fault, or any other vegan's fault, that some people try to assert moral superiority in discussing these kinds of topics.


----------



## turkalurk

Believe it or not, I love animals.  The way  see it, the more chickens and cows we eat, the more chickens and cows can live.  For vegetarianism as a code of ethics to work, the large population of farm animals will have to be eliminated or their population growth restricted.  Therefore. by advocating a vegan diet as an ethical decision, you are, in fact, advocating a policy that would prohibit the lives of future animals.   You are implying that the food we eat ought not to exist, then to live a life in which they are eaten by humans.  

As a personal food preference, you are merely expressing your personal appreciation for animals and your desire to making considerate choices.  When it becomes a moral duty, then you seek to eliminate variety.  Variety is a good thing.  The more variety we have in our food choices, the more resources we have available to utilize.  If we become too dependent on one food source, then we can exhaust that food source.  

I like the idea of finding a healthy compromise.  I appreciate your preference of eating food, but I am also thankful for the predator's role in an ecosystem.  I think its time to get back in touch with that aspect of my nature and be willing to kill and gut an animal that I intend to consume.  

Still on the fence about it really.  I think I might feel worse for taking a life that lives wild and free.  To take life that would be alive without our intervention anyway.  I think I would rather eat something that was killed for the reason it was bred for; a life that would not exist otherwise.  I feel more comfortable buying meat that's already dead(regardless of where it came from) than killing a wild animal.


----------



## Ninae

murphythecat said:


> meat eaters are the racist one thinking its okay to kill and create suffering in a ''different'' species (animals) just like racist convinced themselves that black were inferior to white and so it was okay to use them, make them slave and create suffering to them.



They viewed blacks as a kind of animals. But just because someone comes accross more animal-like doesn't mean they don't suffer or it's fine to make them suffer. Most will argue humans are a form of animals, too, yet we have all these human rights that makes us priviliged from other animals.


----------



## turkalurk

Xorkoth said:


> Though ethical gloating has gone on in this thread at various times, I haven't seen willow behaving that way.  He wrote a thread wanting to start a discussion about the ethics of veganism and vegetarianism.  The desire to discuss this topic does not equal gloating about it.  It's not his fault, or any other vegan's fault, that some people try to assert moral superiority in discussing these kinds of topics.




I never said it was his fault any more than mine or anyone elses.  I am just making an observation that many people have played a role in the causal chain of discussion.  Nothing is usually one person's fault.  We are all acountable and responsible in our role.  I fully acknowledge my role.  I am satisfied with who I am and the role that I play in Life.


----------



## murphythecat

very interesting post and Id agree that its a interesting point of view.
still, we dont create chicken to offer them a good life, we raise them in terrible conditions, some live all thier life with terrible disease, feed them like crazy and then we kill them. all this chain, if avoided, would be better. I dont think chicken would mind not having those terrible living conditions.
I also agree that taking a life of a animal in wildness is terrible imo. so sad to kill a happy animal when we could just eat something else and let them live. what im most concern is not just the suffering in the animal we kill, but the suffering that create in the one who kills. its very bad for a human to kill another being. the intention to kill is one that should be avoided at all cost.

the meat we eat has nothing to do with our predator role anymore.



turkalurk said:


> Believe it or not, I love animals.  The way  see it, the more chickens and cows we eat, the more chickens and cows can live.  For vegetarianism as a code of ethics to work, the large population of farm animals will have to be eliminated or their population growth restricted.  Therefore. by advocating a vegan diet as an ethical decision, you are, in fact, advocating a policy that would prohibit the lives of future animals.   You are implying that the food we eat ought not to exist, then to live a life in which they are eaten by humans.
> 
> As a personal food preference, you are merely expressing your personal appreciation for animals and your desire to making considerate choices.  When it becomes a moral duty, then you seek to eliminate variety.  Variety is a good thing.  The more variety we have in our food choices, the more resources we have available to utilize.  If we become too dependent on one food source, then we can exhaust that food source.
> 
> I like the idea of finding a healthy compromise.  I appreciate your preference of eating food, but I am also thankful for the predator's role in an ecosystem.  I think its time to get back in touch with that aspect of my nature and be willing to kill and gut an animal that I intend to consume.
> 
> Still on the fence about it really.  I think I might feel worse for taking a life that lives wild and free.  To take life that would be alive without our intervention anyway.  I think I would rather eat something that was killed for the reason it was bred for; a life that would not exist otherwise.  I feel more comfortable buying meat that's already dead(regardless of where it came from) than killing a wild animal.


----------



## turkalurk

If there was more of an option buy free range chickens I would.  I do wish that we didn't value mass production over fairness and quality.  I do think we have a responsibility to provide a quality life for the conscious organisms we create.  We ought to create a life that we can at least imagine is worth living.


----------



## Ninae

If you don't want to give up flesh, why not transfer to just fish? Fish don't have much of a nervous system and don't feel much suffering. And high-quality deep-fried fish is a good meat-substitute.


----------



## murphythecat

at the very least
but its not gonna happen as people want cheap meat. the only way is to at least stop buying the super market meat.





turkalurk said:


> If there was more of an option buy free range chickens I would.  I do wish that we didn't value mass production over fairness and quality.  I do think we have a responsibility to provide a quality life for the conscious organisms we create.  We ought to create a life that we can at least imagine is worth living.


----------



## murphythecat

its been shown that fish can definitely experience pain and the way the fish are raised is as terrible if not worst. fish are sick in small bassin overpopulated.





Ninae said:


> If you don't want to give up flesh, why not transfer to just fish? Fish don't have much of a nervous system and don't feel much suffering. And high-quality deep-fried fish is a good meat-substitute.


----------



## Ninae

But fish don't have much consciousness compared to cows and sheep.


----------



## murphythecat

Ninae said:


> But fish don't have much consciousness compared to cows and sheep.



They still experience mental pain and maybe some physical pain. a fish still wants to live and a life, any life, is not for us to take.


----------



## Erikmen

Ninae said:


> But fish don't have much consciousness compared to cows and sheep.



I don't buy this theory. They die just like we drown.
 Bring a meal specialist and see how many arguments the industry has about killing cows. Not that I believe in it but I don't agree with you ideas of .. No no fish don't suffer. Not true.

If consciousness is the thing that "makes it easy" for the fish, one might suggest to sedate the cows..


----------



## Ninae

It has been suggested by some great spiritual teachers who wanted to reduce the suffering of animals. Killing a fish is on the level of killing a rodent, anyway.


----------



## Erikmen

It certainly makes it easy to eat them.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Ninae said:


> But fish don't have much consciousness compared to cows and sheep.



Are you allowed to eat brain damaged cows with the mental capacity of an intelligent fish?


----------



## Erikmen

One Thousand Words said:


> Are you allowed to eat brain damaged cows with the mental capacity of an intelligent fish?


 Interesting point. As I had just mentioned what if the cows are sedated? No conscious, ok! And the cow that dies, ok too. In Cuba they accidentally " hit" the cows so you are allowed to eat them.
Choose your mentor that is IMO.
Interesting theories about fish and their lack of suffering.. Specially because it was decided by a spiritual guide..


----------



## Erikmen

Ninae said:


> It has been suggested by some great spiritual teachers who wanted to reduce the suffering of animals. Killing a fish is on the level of killing a rodent, anyway.


 
Not long ago they used to say that about black people or Jews..
It makes it all easier.


----------



## What 23

murphythecat said:


> They still experience mental pain and maybe some physical pain. a fish still wants to live and a life, any life, is not for us to take.



You are wrong.


----------



## Ninae

I think fish experience some discomfort but not the gruesome pain that mammals do. Their eyes are really cold. A mice probably experiences much more pain.


----------



## Erikmen

Maybe


----------



## What 23

There are humans who don't experience pain. This also makes them different psychologically... They never build circuits the same way. I think I'm going to find one, and kill them. Or maybe cut their arm off and eat it in front of them. "This doesn't bother you, right? You can't feel pain so it must not matter."

Honestly I can't determine if you are conscious. I can only assume. I can try to deduce. You could easily just be my food source, and it is a trick to think you're anything more.


----------



## Erikmen

Great point indeed!


----------



## murphythecat

you wish





What 23 said:


> You are wrong.


----------



## What 23

No, I know you're wrong.


----------



## What 23

You're at least that much.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Ninae said:


> I think fish experience some discomfort but not the gruesome pain that mammals do. Their eyes are really cold. A mice probably experiences much more pain.



You have obviously never fished. It seems to me that an ability to scream in pain is your only prerequisite to being able to eat something. Not having eyelids probably reduces their ability to express their true emotions. I have hunted eels since I was a young barefoot kid in the bush and I can attest to not only their intelligence and cunning, but also their desire for revenge. 

Octopuses are another creature which although evolutionary speaking may be less developed than vertebrate, possess an amazing ability to solve complex puzzles. 

They are delicious too.


----------



## swilow

^FWIW, I think that consuming fish seems to be most damaging, in terms of worldwide fish stocks being in grave decline with many species facing extinction. Ovefishing is a real problem. I think simply going fishing- you know, a dude and a rod- is acceptable, but the mass factory ships and trawlers are disturbing and extremely bad for sea creatures.



Erikmen said:


> Of course you were Ninae, as you also claim to be from a superior kingdom of Angels. I'm talking about people in general. I don't think vegetarians are strange, just different maybe.



Come now erik, lets be pleasant 



turkalurk said:


> Or, because I mispelled the word invasive.  It depends on how you look at it.  Maybe, all this is because you decided to write a thread condusive to ethical gloating about food choices.



The reason you overreacted when a single misspelt word was corrected is all because of this topic's propensity to inspire gloating?


----------



## Erikmen

It's simple to me. People may have different points of view and that happens a lot, reason for which we use IMO.

But with Ninae it's different because she wants to impose her opinion just because she's saying so.

I disagree with her, I don't think having a spiritual teacher telling you things make them right. And those affirmations is just like these religion radicals who want to impose their opinion based on their God.

NO Ninae, you are not qualified IMO to determine who suffer more or  less on the alimentary chain! 

That's why I agree with some of the posters here when it comes to level of conscious in order to feel pain, Ninae is not the expert here, and imo she should stop pretending she is.

Like I said, lots of fascists and racists have the same logic she applies. Convince yourself than it's okay. BS!


----------



## Erikmen

One Thousand Words said:


> You have obviously never fished. It seems to me that an ability to scream in pain is your only prerequisite to being able to eat something. Not having eyelids probably reduces their ability to express their true emotions. I have hunted eels since I was a young barefoot kid in the bush and I can attest to not only their intelligence and cunning, but also their desire for revenge.
> 
> Octopuses are another creature which although evolutionary speaking may be less developed than vertebrate, possess an amazing ability to solve complex puzzles.
> 
> They are delicious too.


 This


----------



## pasha

Unfortunate abject was cornered into leaving the thread by page 2. I enjoyed his point of view as well as otw's. Decent thread but deeply lacking in sources and sprinkled with a lot of shit talking. Not subscribing.


----------



## swilow

baooozs said:


> Unfortunate abject was cornered into leaving the thread by page 2. I enjoyed his point of view as well as otw's. Decent thread but deeply lacking in sources and sprinkled with a lot of shit talking. Not subscribing.



But if you think this, perhaps you should join in and try and improve it?


----------



## Journyman16

turkalurk said:


> Proper puncuation is also part of grammar.  Do you think this post is properly puncuated?


LOL - happy for you to post your corrections... :D of my 'puncuation'... :D (given you don't seem able to spell the word I am sincerely interested. :D)


----------



## pasha

willow11 said:


> But if you think this, perhaps you should join in and try and improve it?



I'd rather not be called a haughty schoolmaster after presenting a well supported viewpoint in a completely civil manner. I'll politely decline your invitation. I did just read all 26 pages at once so that should count for something at least. 

I also have many farms and slaughter my animals halal. I eat tongue, testicles, brain, intestines, eyes, ears and every other orrifice of an animal where meat can be found. 

Ps. This steak is delicious. 






Willow, if you don't mind me asking...a/s/l? I'm sure I can get you to munch on some sausage at the very least.


----------



## Erikmen

baooozs said:


> I'd rather not be called a haughty schoolmaster after presenting a well supported viewpoint in a completely civil manner. I'll politely decline your invitation. I did just read all 26 pages at once so that should count for something at least.
> 
> I also have many farms and slaughter my animals halal. I eat tongue, testicles, brain, intestines, eyes, ears and every other orrifice of an animal where meat can be found.
> 
> Ps. This steak is delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willow, if you don't mind me asking...a/s/l? I'm sure I can get you to munch on some sausage at the very least.



Lol..


----------



## swilow

baooozs said:


> I'd rather not be called a haughty schoolmaster after presenting a well supported viewpoint in a completely civil manner. I'll politely decline your invitation. I did just read all 26 pages at once so that should count for something at least.



Sorry, I must have missed where you were called that.

My comment was genuine. I wasn't being passive aggressive or anything like that. I think you may have taken it in the wrong way. Oh well.



> Willow, if you don't mind me asking...a/s/l? I'm sure I can get you to munch on some sausage at the very least.



You serious? Grow up dude.


----------



## Abject

willow11 said:


> Willow, if you don't mind me asking...a/s/l? I'm sure I can get you to munch on some sausage at the very least.
> 
> 
> 
> You serious? Grow up dude.
Click to expand...


wow ur the one who needs to grow up that was a quality post
willow11 u are absolutely haram
why can't u be halal like baooooooooozs


----------



## pasha

willow11 said:


> My comment was genuine. I wasn't being passive aggressive or anything like that. I think you may have taken it in the wrong way. Oh well.



I'm sure it was.

Was this one sincere as well:



> Sorry, I must have missed where you were called that.



If it's still hard to decipher that I was talking about your comment towards abject, I'll kindly point you to page 2..right about where this thread turned to shit. And not the kind you put on grass for cows to eat either. More like the diarrhea kind you get after a vegan Indian spicy curry dinner. 



> Grow up dude.



Easy. All I have to do is increase my meat intake.



> You serious?



Just checked your profile and it says you're male. No thanks.


----------



## ForEverAfter

willow has maintained his composure pretty damn well for 40 pages.
Nobody's perfect, but he certainly hasn't acted like you acting right now.
I'm not sure if you're a teenager, but that's how you're coming across ATM.

You're derailing a thread by going on off on a tangent about how the thread was derailed.
You're cornering someone about cornering someone.
Grow up.



> ur the one who needs to grow up that was a quality post



No, it wasn't.
It's "shit-talking" and more so than most people are doing, around here.


----------



## pasha

Fair enough. I'm out


----------



## pasha

I'll go and do some nutritional soul searching. Before that though I'll search for a sense of humor. Might start a thread with an OP like this:



> I don't have a sense of humor. Now I'm not biased towards people who do or don't but I'd like the pros and cons of having one in order to validate myself. I'll take into account and immediately dismiss all facts presented. Thanks.


----------



## murphythecat

can you try to be more inflammatory?
the lights are on you





baooozs said:


> I'm sure it was.
> 
> Was this one sincere as well:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's still hard to decipher that I was talking about your comment towards abject, I'll kindly point you to page 2..right about where this thread turned to shit. And not the kind you put on grass for cows to eat either. More like the diarrhea kind you get after a vegan Indian spicy curry dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy. All I have to do is increase my meat intake.
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked your profile and it says you're male. No thanks.


----------



## pasha

It was a few tongue in cheek comments. You're free to interpret them as you wish but OP engaged me and I obliged. 

Why do you always put quoted posts after your own? There's a certain logic behind having the quoted post first. I would explain but I promised to be out. 

Goodbye


----------



## murphythecat

because anyone still read the post then the quoted post I imagine 


baooozs said:


> It was a few tongue in cheek comments. You're free to interpret them as you wish but OP engaged me and I obliged.
> 
> Why do you always put quoted posts after your own? There's a certain logic behind having the quoted post first. I would explain but I promised to be out.
> 
> Goodbye


----------



## swilow

Well isn't this odd? This is the 2nd time that I am honestly stumped by reactions to this topic.  

I don't know why it seems to be assumed that I care at all about how anyone else lives. I really don't care about the anonymous strangers that consist of most of the internet. You can eat fucking Egyptian pyramids for all I care. It seems that this topic is offensive to people in some way. If you eat meat, that is one thing that you do that I don't agree with, but I don't think it really has much greater meaning to most who do it. For that reason, I don't look down or judge people for eating meat because it is minor/insignificant. Most really good and valuable people eat meat. That they eat meat doesn't change anything to me. Why can't I be granted the same fucking clemency? There is no condemnation FROM ME; this is all being utterly imagined and I have said this continuously. Instead of getting insulted, why not actually read and thus avoid coming across illogically and unreasonably?


----------



## What 23

I think we should have a good cry and poo poo.


----------



## swilow

^Somebody already has, as usual.


----------



## spacejunk

It's interesting how defensive people can become when the topic(s) of diet and ethics are raised.


----------



## murphythecat

yes, and imo, when people are so defensive and offensive, its when they are in the wrong or feel they may be wrong





spacejunk said:


> It's interesting how defensive people can become when the topic(s) of diet and ethics are raised.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> It was a few tongue in cheek comments. You're free to interpret them as you wish but OP engaged me and I obliged.



That doesn't accurately portray what you did/said.



> when people are so defensive and offensive, its when they are in the wrong or feel they may be wrong



Yep. There's a lot more anger coming from the meat eating side.
Numerous people feel like they're being attacked in some way, but - really - I think they're fighting their own guilt.
That's how it comes across, anyway... Otherwise, I'm not sure why everyone's getting so worked up.



> I'll go and do some nutritional soul searching. Before that though I'll search for a sense of humor.



Apparently if people don't think you're funny, they don't have a sense of humor?
You contradicted yourself and came across as (hypocritically) rude/antagonistic.


----------



## pasha

ForEverAfter said:


> That doesn't accurately portray what you did/said.



Lesson #1 in philosophy. No one can accurately portray an event, each person has a different perspective which is influenced by countless factors. Keyword being perspective. I honestly, unlike claiming to honestly not care, don't care what anyone eats. 

I was raised in a very multicultural background. Having read the thread from the beginning though I couldn't help but catch a whiff of the bias in willy Wonkas tone, contrary to OP. The most obvious of all posts in which he casually dished an ad-hom at abject by labeling him a haughty schoolmaster when being presented with a perfectly reasonable argument. 

Having finished 26 pages all I was left thinking was "I've been fooled by the OP into believing he was non-biased." 

That's my perspective. You're free to have yours. You can get back to chatting about the OP or continue chatting about my 2-3 posts if the main subject is really that boring for you.


----------



## GodandLove

Going vegan obviously isn't about procuring health benefits, as study after study has shown vegans/vegetarians are no more "healthy" than their meat eating counterparts and in some cases are actually even less so.

So the only reason _left_ to be a vegan is for the whole self righteous ideology of sparing animals from "unnecessary suffering" and the belief that you're somehow "morally superior" for doing so. 





> "Im a vegan bro, don't mess with me, I have morals and I care about animals more than you."
> What? Starving children in Africa depend on meat as a viable source of protein? Nutrition is scarce? Huh?
> What does that have to do with anything?
> Who cares, I'm not a philanthropist, IM A DAMN VEGAN!
> Screw the children in Africa! I'm better than you!"



Well, vegans/vegetarians, guess what? I'm trans-species. That's right.

 IM AN ALPHA MALE LION!

MY back is to the wall and I've got mouths to feed, MY PRIDE IS DEPENDING ON ME! I aint got time to be worrying about this buffalo's feelings and I'll be damned if I ever let one of these buffalo manipulate me into feeling sorry for it. 

I'M A LION!

THIS IS WHAT I DO!

Out here in the wild, game is game, it's not how you play it, it's if you win or lose. And I aint gonna lose, that's for DAMN SURE!






Try getting in my way, I dare you.


----------



## pasha

Welcome back


----------



## murphythecat

GodandLove said:


> So the only reason _left_ to be a vegan is for the whole self righteous ideology of sparing animals from "unnecessary suffering"
> .


yeah, its not for health reason at all, only for moral reasons. Id think that most vegetarian that do it seriously and will do it for most there life do it for moral reasons.

one hater after another. I guess, its guilt talking over and over. welcome back, guilt!


----------



## pasha

British Medical Journal - 2015



> Conclusions Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.


http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full

At the very least, to restate what abject has said, all evidence based on clinical trials in the past 4 decades has been debunked and at the very least, the thesis that red meat is harmful needs to be seriously revisited.


----------



## swilow

baooozs said:


> I was raised in a very multicultural background. Having read the thread from the beginning though I couldn't help but catch a whiff of the bias in willy Wonkas tone, contrary to OP. The most obvious of all posts in which he casually dished an ad-hom at abject by labeling him a haughty schoolmaster when being presented with a perfectly reasonable argument.
> 
> Having finished 26 pages all I was left thinking was "I've been fooled by the OP into believing he was non-biased."



So you read the whole thread and somehow mistook the topic for being about me and my bias? Sorry for being human and not 100% consistent and fair as you must be. Unless you're not, in which case you are just being hypocritical and dishonest. 

I try my hardest not to consider myself more important then others. I don't know if I succeed but at least I fucking try.



> That's my perspective. You're free to have yours. You can get back to chatting about the OP or continue chatting about my 2-3 posts if the main subject is really that boring for you.



You really should know better then to act like this. Have higher standards and try not to instinctively take sides. I'm sure Abject can defend herself/himself against comments made 3 or more weeks ago.


----------



## pasha

Abject chose to be the better man. I unfortunately didn't - and for that, I apologize. 

I have no problem with bias, I have a problem with being propagated into thinking someone's on the fence.


----------



## spacejunk

baooozs said:


> At the very least, to restate what abject has said, all evidence based on clinical trials in the past 4 decades has been debunked and at the very least, the thesis that red meat is harmful needs to be seriously revisited.



Harmful to whom?
The individual human - clearly debatable, as this thread demonstrates - or the wider ecosystem we all share?
I'm not taking sides, but saying you are right and differing opinion is wrong is rather absolutist and overly defensive.
Regardless of what you are arguing.
Are you trying to say that _not eating meat_ is somehow wrong?  I dont know any vegans or vegetarians that eat that diet for (their own personal) health reasons alone.  A plethora of other reasons, but none that i know personally that have adopted veganism or vegetarianism for their own personal health. Having said that, i have no doubt that such folk do exist; we are all different.
Thank goodness for that.

But i fail to see what halal has to do with ethics.  Faith - sure; whatever. But ethics?  Please enlighten us.


----------



## pasha

Physiologically harmful. I presented a clinical study from a medical journal so I thought that would be clear. I also said it needs to be revisited so I don't need to be told it's "clearly debatable." 

Halal has several reasonings and the most prominent one in terms of ethics is that the blade during the dhabiha or the slaughter of the animal must be extremely sharp and the individual performing the slaughter must be very well trained to slit the throat as swiftly as possible to ensure minimal suffering.


----------



## spacejunk

What about ecologically?
'First world problem', no?


----------



## What 23

Yes the gay hedonist etc backlash against preachers that go to schools and bark at kids is because the gay hedonists etc feel bad etc. It has nothing to do with that the bible thumper is annoying, and many wouldn't mind seeing him get _violently_ silenced by a bearwolfdogjesus.

Perhaps that is harsh.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> What about ecologically?



But that's been discussed to death in this thread. And the other side of the coin has been presented that even a vegan diet has equivalent if not worst ecological consequences. Perhaps you should read the thread? I'm not here to give you her cliff notes.




> 'First world problem', no?



Are you suggesting that since I eat halal meat, and I am Muslim, I am oblivious to ecological problems or as you put it 'first world problems.'


----------



## spacejunk

Again, you seem rather defensive when being asked to elaborate upon your strongly held opinion.
Are you interested in discussing the topic, or are you more interested in trying to dominate it?
I'm not even taking sides, just interested in where you're coming from.  

Or just get pissed off at me for asking questions.


----------



## What 23

Yes and maybe also the violent reactions people have when I air my thoughts that the white race (however ambiguous that term might prove) shouldn't blend itself away via mass immigration from the third world, and shouldn't hand their countries over, like Sweden has... Maybe reactions to that and my certain "White Supremacism" are born of knowing I'm right, jealousy, fear, etc. Yes. This is why people get so vile with me, like bit-pattern... Who also got violent with me when I said that gay marriage isn't at all marriage like a male female marriage can e marriage, and that sex between a man and a woman... Penis and vagina, is superior. Because they know I'm right. That's why they hate me. I see it all so clearly now.


----------



## GodandLove

murphythecat said:


> yeah, its not for health reason at all, only for moral reasons. Id think that most vegetarian that do it seriously and will do it for most there life do it for moral reasons.
> 
> one hater after another. I guess, its guilt talking over and over. welcome back, guilt!



So you're only promoting veganism because you believe that "eating animals is immoral", correct? Not that it somehow makes the world a better place, just that it's immoral and you shouldn't do it, because it's "dirty and sinful". 

You then contort this "belief" into a form of pseudorationalism and use it as a manipulation tactic to guilt others into thinking the way you do. I bet you get off on that don't you? 

It's not about the animals, it's about you imposing your will onto others isn't it? 

Hmmmmm, who else operates like that? Who else uses manipulation to guilt people into conditioned ways of being?

Sociopaths? Yeah, sociopaths.

Oh and the religious.... That's a big one.

Sociopathy and religion often go hand and hand.

By the way, which faith do you follow?


----------



## spacejunk

I dont think the two topics are really analogous at all, what 23.


----------



## What 23

He is a buddhist monk (and very enlightened) who sacrificed his girlfriend and has no friends.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> Again, you seem rather defensive when being asked to elaborate upon your strongly held opinion.
> Are you interested in discussing the topic, or are you more interested in trying to dominate it?
> I'm not even taking sides, just interested in where you're coming from.
> 
> Or just get pissed off at me for asking questions.



"Pissed, defensive, strongly held opinion" - will you listen to yourself. I'm not even interested in this entire topic and had it not been for a report I would have never even opened the thread and bothered to read it. I have no strong opinion. You asked for me to explain what halal had to do with ethicis, I explained. You asked about the specific use if the term harmful on a wider scale, I gave you my answer, which is, that I share the opinion of those that believe that vegan diets have their own ecological pitfalls. 

Are you trying to deter from the fact that you made a racist statement by making all these judgements and accusations about by motives? Because you didn't answer my question...

I wanted out long ago. Now that the thread has lost its comedic value eg ninae's ignorant statements being taken for a ride by busty or abject schooling willy Wonka from the kick off or me revealing the truth behind Willys intentions, I want out even more. I'm not even giving this silly OP the benefit of having his thread bumped to the top of the roster. 

You vegans can eat as many veggies as you want but we all know you crave the sausage and have it in your mouths behind closed doors.


----------



## murphythecat

GodandLove said:


> So you're only promoting veganism because you believe that "eating animals is immoral", correct? Not that it somehow makes the world a better place, just that it's immoral and you shouldn't do it, because it's "dirty and sinful".
> 
> You then contort this "belief" into a form of pseudorationalism and use it as a manipulation tactic to guilt others into thinking the way you do. I bet you get off on that don't you?
> 
> It's not about the animals, it's about you imposing your will onto others isn't it?
> 
> Hmmmmm, who else operates like that? Who else uses manipulation to guilt people into conditioned ways of being?
> 
> Sociopaths? Yeah, sociopaths.
> 
> Oh and the religious.... That's a big one.
> 
> Sociopathy and religion often go hand and hand.
> 
> By the way, which faith do you follow?


yes, I dont eat meat because I believe killing should be avoided. we should try, as smart beings, as much as we can, to protect sentient beings.

its not pseudorationalism to realize how much suffering we impose to animals, its only seeing the reality. time to open your eye.
my religion has nothing to do with that. actually, anyone who doesnt understand how killing animals is cruel are sociopath to me.


----------



## spacejunk

baooozs said:


> Are you suggesting that since I eat halal meat, and I am Muslim, I am oblivious to ecological problems or as you put it 'first world problems.'


No, you are taking that completely out of context.

"Racist", "ignorant" "you vegans" 
- may i suggest you apply the same self reflection to your own posts?  
For the record, i didnt assume  that halal farming makes you a muslim - many farmers in my country slaugter animals this way, as it opens up more markets to their produce.

Are you suggesting that i am vegan because i'm not taking your side of the "debate"?


----------



## What 23

Hey Murphy. My friend when I was little... My best friend, his family had a word for the penis and it was Murphy. Heiney was the butt. And when they went wee wee it was wee wee and when they went loadies it was loadies.

Essentially your name is penisvagina when it gets down to it, and that


----------



## GodandLove

murphythecat said:


> yes, I dont eat meat because I believe killing should be avoided. quite the contrary, we should try, as smart beings, as much as we can, to protect sentient beings.
> 
> its not pseudorationalism to realize how much suffering we impose to animals, its only seeing the reality. time to open your eye.
> my religion has nothing to do with that. actually, anyone who doesnt understand how killing animal is cruel are sociopath to me.



There you go again, setting perimeters/conditions and injecting circumstance favorable/fine tuned to your individual belief system. Protect only "Sentient beings"? You can't put perimeters/conditions on nature, sorry. Nor can you impose "inherited moral perceptions" on the free thinking human mind. Maybe you should take your own advice and wipe the rheum away because there's obviously something obstructing your vision.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> No, you are taking that completely out of context.



No, no I'm not. And you know it. 



spacejunk said:


> "Racist", "ignorant" "you vegans"
> - may i suggest you apply the same self reflection to your own posts?



I have taken your advice and reflected upon the quoted words and they're perfectly acceptable within their given contexts. Your statement was not taken out of context as it was the entire statement itself which was offensive. 



spacejunk said:


> For the record, i didnt assume  that halal farming makes you a muslim - many farmers in my country slaugter animals this way, as it opens up more markets to their produce.



Then you're dearly misinformed. You have to be a Muslim to produce halal meat. You don't have to be Muslim to eat it. More fun facts, Muslims are in certain circumstances allowed to eat non halal meat and kosher meat is permitted because it follows a similar protocol.



> Are you suggesting that i am vegan because i'm not taking your side of the "debate"?



I honestly misread one of your earlier posts due to the format. A weak counter statement for making a racist comment nonetheless. The term 'first world problem' is inherently racist. 

Don't you get tired of this at some point? Nitpicking posts, intellectual masturbation, slight jabs, tip toeing around making adhoms and racist remarks and defamation when someone's slightly crossed the line. I can sit here and circle jerk with you all day if that's what you're after.


----------



## spacejunk

baooozs said:


> Willow, if you don't mind me asking...a/s/l? I'm sure I can get you to munch on some sausage at the very least.





			
				baooozs said:
			
		

> Just checked your profile and it says you're male. No thanks.


Saying "first world problems" is not racist.
Referring to the "first world" is - if anything - ridiculously outdated capitalist bullshit, granted, but i'm not trying to debate the merits of communism with you. 

We can discuss bigotry and hypocrisy if that suits you better?

Simply suggesting you look at the big picture.
But thats a bit too much for you. And you know it.


----------



## murphythecat

GodandLove said:


> There you go again, setting perimeters/conditions and injecting circumstance favorable/fine tuned to your individual belief system. Protect only "Sentient beings"? You can't put perimeters/conditions on nature, sorry. Nor can you impose "inherited moral perceptions" on the free thinking human mind.


 I loved meat. its ethics were talking about, not preferences. I wish I didnt feel bad eating meat, as I love meat.

how opportun to not take moral responsability and always resort to the same non sense argumentation of the way nature is. I dont care about how exterior nature works, I only care about my choices and how much of my choice affect the world and my inner world. I feel I can know quite certainly in almost every situation what is more right and what is more wrong. killing for me feel wrong in all my being. 

if you want to pretend you cannot know for sure what is wrong or right, thats its all view point and even that morality and ethics isnt governed by universal law, you have the right to think that, but I dont.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> Saying "first world problems" is not racist.
> Referring to the "first world" is - if anything - ridiculously outdated capitalist bullshit, granted, but i'm not trying to debate the merits of communism with you.
> 
> We can discuss bigotry and hypocrisy if that suits you better?
> 
> Simply suggesting you look at the big picture.
> But thats a bit too much for you. And you know it.



Outdated capitalist bullshit, a clear attempt at damage control.

Hardly a clever escape. You used the only leverage you had in those quoted posts. What now?

Again with the circle jerk but okay, let's discuss bigotry and hypocrisy. Let's start with bigotry.


----------



## spacejunk

Defensive much?
The quotes were in reference to your 'circle jerk' remark.  See what i quoted?  Reads as bigotry, but i'm obviously misreading your garbage like you're misreading mine.

Circle jerk...Ironic, when you seem to post a lot of one-liners in the nudie thread.


----------



## swilow

baooxs said:
			
		

> I have no problem with bias, I have a problem with being propagated into thinking someone's on the fence.



I've only really ever _tried_ to be unbiased. I certainly wouldn't say that I've succeeded. I guess you are ideologically 100% pure unlike every other human ever. Your problem is that you've let your bias inform your reading of the thread. You are unable to separate the idea's in the OP from the poster. I made very effort to be as open-minded as humanly possible, but some people have found that to be either insincere or insulting. Its fallen short of the mark, but at least I tried. I'm not sure you have which is unfair.  



boooze said:


> I wanted out long ago. Now that the thread has lost its comedic value eg ninae's ignorant statements being taken for a ride by busty or abject schooling willy Wonka from the kick off or me revealing the truth behind Willys intentions, I want out even more. I'm not even giving this silly OP the benefit of having his thread bumped to the top of the roster.



Are you always this flippant? I'm happy to listen to whatever idea's you have, but not when you act like you have been. You keep talking about things that happened like 3 weeks ago which was 3 weeks before I'd ever even read your name before. It seems kind of like you've just wanted to start shit from the get-go and then back away from it once a few people raised their concern.  

I'm tempted to bait you because I think you deserve it, but I'm too stoned. 



> You vegans can eat as many veggies as you want but we all know you crave the sausage and have it in your mouths behind closed doors.



That's the same pretty bad dick joke that you made earlier. It hasn't really improved with age. 

Out of some kind of respect for people, why don't you keep this shit in the Lounge? Seriously, its just unpleasant in this context.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> Defensive much?
> The quotes were in reference to your 'circle jerk' remark.  See what i quoted?  Reads as bigotry, but i'm obviously misreading your garbage like you're misreading mine.
> 
> Circle jerk...Ironic, when you seem to post a lot of one-liners in the nudie thread.





The whole defensive much you're angry tactic is weak. I know its a proven method to get someone riled up in debate but try harder.

So this is what this is all about, me posting in the lounge. Tell me about this big picture you speak of? We have not heard of such a thing in these foreign 3rd world nations. But before you do, a/s/l? If you turn out to be a female I'll leave meat for good besides getting legitimately turned on. Although, the way this opiate comedown is driving my libido I could fuck a guy. Once it hits full throttle I might even have a gang bang with you, god and love, ms Murphy, ninae, willy Wonka, and busty without even having to add him to the list.


----------



## Journyman16

I'd be munching popcorn except it's a grain... :D I don't think even vegans should eat grains, although it is OK for many vegetarians because it helps them taste good... :D


----------



## GodandLove

murphythecat said:


> I loved meat. its ethics were talking about, not preferences.
> 
> how opportun to not take moral responsability and always resort to the same non sense argumentation of the way nature is. I dont care about how exterior nature works, I only care about my choices and how much of my choice affect the world and my inner world. I feel I can know quite certainly in almost every situation what is more right and what is more wrong.
> 
> if you want to pretend you cannot know for sure what is wrong or right, thats its all view point and even that morality and ethics isnt governed by universal law, you have the right to think that, but I dont.



Nature is Nature, she does what she wants. The exterior is just a reflection of the interior, there is not and never has been an "out here". Everything takes place within, surprise. I'm not the one trying to project illusions of morality onto a moral resistant canvas. You are. I'm not the one playing pretend, diluting myself with delusions of sanctity. For I know that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. These are constructs, symptoms of the ego, a mind bound to unreality.....A mind bound to Boundaries... A mind bound to Limitations... To No's, dont's and can'ts. 

Sorry, but I'm a Yes man and I say yes to infinity and I say yes to infinite possibility. Nothing is off limits for me, my mind is as free as the breeze. I've destroyed the ego. Nothing is unholy, nothing is auspicious, for everything is of God and everything is of divinity, and everything is one. No compartmentalization.


----------



## spacejunk

Im a girl but i'd never touch a dirty carnie (that's vegan talk for meat eater donchyaknow?)


----------



## pasha

willow11 said:


> I've only really ever _tried_ to be unbiased. I certainly wouldn't say that I've succeeded. I guess you are ideologically 100% pure unlike every other human ever. Your problem is that you've let your bias inform your reading of the thread. You are unable to separate the idea's in the OP from the poster. I made very effort to be as open-minded as humanly possible, but some people have found that to be either insincere or insulting. Its fallen short of the mark, but at least I tried. I'm not sure you have which is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you always this flippant? I'm happy to listen to whatever idea's you have, but not when you act like you have been. You keep talking about things that happened like 3 weeks ago which was 3 weeks before I'd ever even read your name before. It seems kind of like you've just wanted to start shit from the get-go and then back away from it once a few people raised their concern.
> 
> I'm tempted to bait you because I think you deserve it, but I'm too stoned.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same pretty bad dick joke that you made earlier. It hasn't really improved with age.
> 
> Out of some kind of respect for people, why don't you keep this shit in the Lounge? Seriously, its just unpleasant in this context.



Tl;dr


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> Im a girl but i'd never touch a dirty carnie (that's vegan talk for meat eater donchyaknow?)



I told you I'd leave meat for good. I'm a man of my word. No more me being a dirty carnie junkie. It's all about you and me now. Nonetheless, I'd like to see how vegan food stacks up to dirty carnie food so list your top 3 dishes. Vegan of course.


----------



## spacejunk

is everything a dick-sizing contest for you...or has this thread hit a raw nerve?


----------



## What 23

I always thought you were a dude.


----------



## spacejunk

Now you know better.


----------



## pasha

spacejunk said:


> is everything a dick-sizing contest for you...or has this thread hit a raw nerve?



I'm sorry. You win. You're too clever a gal for me


----------



## murphythecat

GodandLove said:


> Nature is Nature, she does what she wants. The exterior is just a reflection of the interior, there is not and never has been an "out here". Everything takes place within, surprise. I'm not the one trying to project illusions of morality onto a moral resistant canvas. You are. I'm not the one playing pretend, diluting myself with delusions of sanctity. For I know that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. These are constructs, symptoms of the ego, a mind bound to unreality.....A mind bound to Boundaries... A mind bound to Limitations... To No's, dont's and can'ts.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm a Yes man and I say yes to infinity and I say yes to infinite possibility. Nothing is off limits for me, my mind is as free as the breeze. I've destroyed the ego. Nothing is unholy, nothing is auspicious, for everything is of God and everything is of divinity, and everything is one. No compartmentalization.


the cosmos can only be found within your own mind and body. theres only your nature and your nature indeed experience good and wrong and can do good and bad things which affect your ''reality''


----------



## What 23

Dude..

Hey Murphy (ahem. penis). The guy had a point since we are all being doobers tonight. When you quote at the end as you do, it sometimes makes it seem odd. I don't mean this as an attack. Why it seems odd, is that it is for one irregular. No other posters do it. For two... When one is reading a thread and suddenly comes your post, where it is clear it is a response to another post from the start, it seems out of order, and like "huh? Who are you talking to?". It just causes some confusion, and it is abnormal. For me, at least, I don't process it as smoothly. When it is the normal quote first your response after, you must see it is more natural and people can see what you're responding to in a way that is more natural. Add that to that you're basically like an evangelist trying to make people feel guilty for touching their naked girlfriends they aren't married to, and you must admit you aren't surprised why people might have difficulty with you.


----------



## What 23

You changed it. Now I'll get back to touching my naked I mean eating the body of a chicken.


----------



## pasha

what 23 said:


> dude..
> 
> Hey murphy (ahem. Penis). The guy had a point since we are all being doobers tonight. When you quote at the end as you do, it sometimes makes it seem odd. I don't mean this as an attack. Why it seems odd, is that it is for one irregular. No other posters do it. For two... When one is reading a thread and suddenly comes your post, where it is clear it is a response to another post from the start, it seems out of order, and like "huh? Who are you talking to?". It just causes some confusion, and it is abnormal. For me, at least, i don't process it as smoothly. When it is the normal quote first your response after, you must see it is more natural and people can see what you're responding to in a way that is more natural. Add that to that you're basically like an evangelist trying to make people feel guilty for touching their naked girlfriends they aren't married to, and you must admit you aren't surprised why people might have difficulty with you.



lol

Seriously lmfao +1


----------



## GodandLove

murphythecat said:


> the cosmos can only be found within your own mind and body.'



Umm okay, that's basically what I just said to you, just worded differently. But okay.



murphythecat said:


> theres only your nature and your nature indeed experience good and wrong and can do good and bad things which affect your ''reality''



Ummm I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here? My nature? There is no my and there is no your. We don't just "affect" reality, we create it. We are creators, not just affectors, but CREATORS! We are drawing from infinity, we are allowed to do and experience whatever we wish. We set the rules of the game, were the ones who program it. We are in charge of our own fates, of our own destinies. As I said before, good and evil do not exist, they don't affect the outcome of ones desired end nor will they ever. Good and Evil are not causalities. They are point of views, they a misguided perceptions, they are falsehoods. They hold no substance. Gravity doesn't bow to goodness, it doesn't  flee from evil, it's a universal force that is free of discrimination. It holds all human beings in place as if all were equal. This is how existence is written. 

I advise you to dig a little deeper into yourself.


----------



## swilow

I enjoy the playing out of atavistic misperceptions here :D



Journyman16 said:


> I'd be munching popcorn except it's a grain... :D I don't think even vegans should eat grains, although it is OK for many vegetarians because it helps them taste good... :D



I'm eating popped sprouted quinoa. Quinoa cannot scream for mercy.


----------



## Journyman16

I have heard good things about quinoa - I have some to grow in my soon-to-be-built greenhouse aquaponics system. 

I think everything can scream for mercy - it's just sometimes they may not be in our 'space.' :D


----------



## pasha

Thread has been reduced to small talk and gibberings


----------



## GodandLove

willow11 said:


> I enjoy the playing out of atavistic misperceptions here :D
> 
> 
> 
> I'm eating popped sprouted quinoa. Quinoa cannot scream for mercy.



Hey willow, you've eaten meat before right?

Why not give yourself a break and go out and treat yourself to a nice steak.?

I think you've earned it. 

It's not gonna hurt anything, it'll be like your cheat day. 

Come on, just go to outback steakhouse and get yourself something nice. Perhaps even a rack of ribs. Mmmmmmmm ribs.  

You've got nothing to lose, not like you haven't eaten meat before. You know what its like. 

So just think on that okay, alright buddy, I'll see you around.


----------



## What 23

tbph the first time I ate meat after not eating meat for years or something, I felt knocked down. It always made me feel dirty. Not guilty, but like... Well. I don't know. It was a different energy. As a vegetarian and vegan I had a high hum energy going on. I felt a connection to the higher. Then I ate meat and it felt like poison. But I didn't experience the same reactions. And I honestly experience pain with just about everything I consume. I just choose what hurts the least, usually, or fulfills requirements without hurting as much. Without feeling like I might suffocate or something due to rapid inflammation. I don't really think I will, because I am a badass and cannot die, but I guess I can never really explain it to people, who are not hypersensitive, as I am, what it is like. But meat... At least... Is densely packed, easily digestible... Yea. And I eat sprouted nuts of sorts, if I get lucky (if mold is nil). I could eat a lot more things, but as I said, it is painful. I choose least pain, and am a bit cornered. This is also why I become defensive. I also don't really want compassion, or at least the kind that offers advice. I only want understanding. This doesn't even mean I want to be liked. I mean, who doesn't? But, the truth is I would really kill you, more than likely, when it came down to it. Or I would sacrifice myself for you (for myself, as I would be applying myself to concepts I have). The later option is most likely. But, if you wanted to be a fascist, the former. You'd be getting fascisted. 

Basically, yea, it feels bad. But I can't get into that. I may just decide to stop sometime. I feel like I reject everything. And I've always been hateful. I seem to like something to hate. Or not really actively be in a state of hate against, but I will have pent up tension or pain that I'll release. I think we all do it. We project our world onto what others are saying. We are all tossing shapes up into the air and sometimes it is more like pareidolia what others see. What we see. I don't know. I'm talking bullshit.
As always.

But yes. 
Meat eating is in ways bad.
But so are we. Sinful.

And anal sex is wrong. I mean really. But it is pretty cool. At least the last time I did it. 
Damn.


----------



## rickolasnice

GodandLove said:


> Hey willow, you've eaten meat before right?
> 
> Why not give yourself a break and go out and treat yourself to a nice steak.?
> 
> I think you've earned it.
> 
> It's not gonna hurt anything, it'll be like your cheat day.
> 
> Come on, just go to outback steakhouse and get yourself something nice. Perhaps even a rack of ribs. Mmmmmmmm ribs.
> 
> You've got nothing to lose, not like you haven't eaten meat before. You know what its like.
> 
> So just think on that okay, alright buddy, I'll see you around.



Why do you assume willow wants to eat meat?


----------



## Erikmen

GodandLove said:


> Nature is Nature, she does what she wants. The exterior is just a reflection of the interior, there is not and never has been an "out here". Everything takes place within, surprise. I'm not the one trying to project illusions of morality onto a moral resistant canvas. You are. I'm not the one playing pretend, diluting myself with delusions of sanctity. For I know that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. These are constructs, symptoms of the ego, a mind bound to unreality.....A mind bound to Boundaries... A mind bound to Limitations... To No's, dont's and can'ts.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm a Yes man and I say yes to infinity and I say yes to infinite possibility. Nothing is off limits for me, my mind is as free as the breeze. I've destroyed the ego. Nothing is unholy, nothing is auspicious, for everything is of God and everything is of divinity, and everything is one. No compartmentalization.



Nice post. Good perspective. A very honest one.


----------



## ForEverAfter

God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)

Nobody lives their life with no sense of right and wrong, they only discount certain things as wrong when it's convenient to them. Everybody has a moral compass. The vegetarians and vegans in this thread are just expressing their opinions about the topic at hand. Nobody is projecting illusions of morality anymore than anybody projects illusions throughout their daily life.



> Nothing is off limits for me, my mind is as free as the breeze. I've destroyed the ego. Nothing is unholy, nothing is auspicious, for everything is of God and everything is of divinity, and everything is one.



That sounds amazing, but - really - it's bullshit.
There are things that are off limits for you.
You are just as human as the rest of us.

I'd wager that you'd have moral issues with stealing from the poor or taking advantage of vulnerable people.
If not, then you're not a very good person IMO.

Morality is an "illusion" as much as everything is illusory... But we need to maintain the illusion, all of us.
We can recognize that everything is meaningless, in other words, but can't live that way.

Your sarcastic post about willow eating meat indicates, to me, that you're not particularly enlightened.
No more than the rest of us, anyway... You're just the latest person to attempt to ethically justify the unjustifiable.


----------



## swilow

^Well said.


----------



## Ninae

One thing about this is that in real life people are used to that vegetarians are just shouted down as they're in the minority. This is a bit unusual in that there's actually a strong voice from the vegetarian side and it seems a bit frustrating to some. But you don't exactly need to be offensive for people to take offence, just the fact that you're vegetarian so many seem to find offensive in itself (just in case you have any ideas).


----------



## Erikmen

ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> 
> Nobody lives their life with no sense of right and wrong, they only discount certain things as wrong when it's convenient to them. Everybody has a moral compass. The vegetarians and vegans in this thread are just expressing their opinions about the topic at hand. Nobody is projecting illusions of morality anymore than anybody projects illusions throughout their daily life.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds amazing, but - really - it's bullshit.
> There are things that are off limits for you.
> You are just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> I'd wager that you'd have moral issues with stealing from the poor or taking advantage of vulnerable people.
> If not, then you're not a very good person IMO.
> 
> Morality is an "illusion" as much as everything is illusory... But we need to maintain the illusion, all of us.
> We can recognize that everything is meaningless, in other words, but can't live that way.
> 
> Your sarcastic post about willow eating meat indicates, to me, that you're not particularly enlightened.
> No more than the rest of us, anyway... You're just the latest person to attempt to ethically justify the unjustifiable.



Indeed a great post.


----------



## socko

Ninae said:


> ... just the fact that you're vegetarian so many seem to find offensive in itself (just in case you have any ideas).


I see it happen all the time.


----------



## Xorkoth

baooozs said:


> But before you do, a/s/l? If you turn out to be a female I'll leave meat for good besides getting legitimately turned on. Although, the way this opiate comedown is driving my libido I could fuck a guy. Once it hits full throttle I might even have a gang bang with you, god and love, ms Murphy, ninae, willy Wonka, and busty without even having to add him to the list.





baooozs said:


> Tl;dr





> and more...



I just wanted to say I would expect better conduct from a senior moderator.  With a few exceptions, everything I've seen you post here so far has been inflammatory, rude, and at times highly insulting.  I'm pretty sure you know better.



baooozs said:


> Thread has been reduced to small talk and gibberings



Yes, and you didn't help that at all.  If it were me I'd step out of this at this point.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> It has been suggested by some great spiritual teachers who wanted to reduce the suffering of animals. Killing a fish is on the level of killing a rodent, anyway.


why is ok to kill the rodentia order?  They are mammals like us? They have a limbic system similar to ours.


----------



## Ninae

spacejunk said:


> Im a girl but i'd never touch a dirty carnie (that's vegan talk for meat eater donchyaknow?)



Thanks for the idea


----------



## socko

Haha yo uliked that too Ninae?





spacejunk said:


> Im a girl but i'd never touch a dirty carnie (that's vegan talk for meat eater donchyaknow?)


Do you ever notice that people who eat a lot of meat stink? Pork-eaters are the worst and smell like rancid pork grease.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> ^FWIW, I think that consuming fish seems to be most damaging, in terms of worldwide fish stocks being in grave decline with many species facing extinction. Ovefishing is a real problem. I think simply going fishing- you know, a dude and a rod- is acceptable, but the mass factory ships and trawlers are disturbing and extremely bad for sea creatures.
> 
> 
> 
> Come now erik, lets be pleasant
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you overreacted when a single misspelt word was corrected is all because of this topic's propensity to inspire gloating?



how did I over-react?  Are you now over-reacting to my over_reaction?


----------



## Ninae

What 23 said:


> tbph the first time I ate meat after not eating meat for years or something, I felt knocked down. It always made me feel dirty. Not guilty, but like... Well. I don't know. It was a different energy. As a vegetarian and vegan I had a high hum energy going on. I felt a connection to the higher.



Meat does lower your vibrational energy and holds you back to some degree if you're spiritually ambitious. I know most will argue this but I don't care. I think it's true.


----------



## turkalurk

Journyman16 said:


> LOL - happy for you to post your corrections... :D of my 'puncuation'... :D (given you don't seem able to spell the word I am sincerely interested. :D)



I'm not the one claiming it matters.  I'm the one that says only a deuchebag would point out those kinds of errors and act like they matter.  Its a shallow criticism when you correct a mistake that does not change the meaning of an argument.  Its a distraction away from the argument.  Its  fallacious, because its an attempt to diminish credibility on irrelevant grounds.


----------



## Ninae

socko said:


> Haha yo uliked that too Ninae?
> Do you ever notice that people who eat a lot of meat stink? Pork-eaters are the worst and smell like rancid pork grease.



It tends to give rotten breath and more body odour. But just think of all the rotting meat and fish inside the body. Rotten vegetables still don't smell anything that bad.


----------



## Xorkoth

I eat meat and I smell gooooood.


----------



## Ninae

You can if you eat quality meat and have very good hygiene.


----------



## turkalurk

GodandLove said:


> Nature is Nature, she does what she wants. The exterior is just a reflection of the interior, there is not and never has been an "out here". Everything takes place within, surprise. I'm not the one trying to project illusions of morality onto a moral resistant canvas. You are. I'm not the one playing pretend, diluting myself with delusions of sanctity. For I know that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. These are constructs, symptoms of the ego, a mind bound to unreality.....A mind bound to Boundaries... A mind bound to Limitations... To No's, dont's and can'ts.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm a Yes man and I say yes to infinity and I say yes to infinite possibility. Nothing is off limits for me, my mind is as free as the breeze. I've destroyed the ego. Nothing is unholy, nothing is auspicious, for everything is of God and everything is of divinity, and everything is one. No compartmentalization.



No offense, but the way you boast of destroying your ego sounds ironically egoic.  We are one;  but you and I are not the same.  You are you, and I am me.  We can only do our best to minimize egoic tendencies of self centered thinking and selfishness, but we are never without our ego.  Enlightenment isn't about destroying the ego, its about avoiding our tendency to attach all of our identity to our conscious thoughts. Our ego is the facade of our personality.   Its an inherent part of our consciousness.  I am unsure how a person would function without some sense of individuality.


----------



## turkalurk

baooozs said:


> I told you I'd leave meat for good. I'm a man of my word. No more me being a dirty carnie junkie. It's all about you and me now. Nonetheless, I'd like to see how vegan food stacks up to dirty carnie food so list your top 3 dishes. Vegan of course.



May the World bless all the hottie vegans turning manly meat eaters into whimpering willows.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> Enlightenment isn't about destroying the ego, its about avoiding our tendency to attach all of our identity to our conscious thoughts. Our ego is the facade of our personality.   Its an inherent part of our consciousness.  I am unsure how a person would function without some sense of individuality.



For once I agree. I don't think you can get rid of the ego completely, you can just purify and refine it. The way I see it part of living in this world is to experience yourself as an ego, or separate self, and learn from it as it's an experience that can't be had in the higher dimensions. 

When you die I think you hang up your ego for a while and take it up again when you come into a new life where you have to re-start where you left off. But without an ego it wouldn't be possible to preoject yourself as a personality in the world or defend yourself against others.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> tbph the first time I ate meat after not eating meat for years or something, I felt knocked down. It always made me feel dirty. Not guilty, but like... Well. I don't know. It was a different energy. As a vegetarian and vegan I had a high hum energy going on. I felt a connection to the higher. Then I ate meat and it felt like poison. But I didn't experience the same reactions. And I honestly experience pain with just about everything I consume. I just choose what hurts the least, usually, or fulfills requirements without hurting as much. Without feeling like I might suffocate or something due to rapid inflammation. I don't really think I will, because I am a badass and cannot die, but I guess I can never really explain it to people, who are not hypersensitive, as I am, what it is like. But meat... At least... Is densely packed, easily digestible... Yea. And I eat sprouted nuts of sorts, if I get lucky (if mold is nil). I could eat a lot more things, but as I said, it is painful. I choose least pain, and am a bit cornered. This is also why I become defensive. I also don't really want compassion, or at least the kind that offers advice. I only want understanding. This doesn't even mean I want to be liked. I mean, who doesn't? But, the truth is I would really kill you, more than likely, when it came down to it. Or I would sacrifice myself for you (for myself, as I would be applying myself to concepts I have). The later option is most likely. But, if you wanted to be a fascist, the former. You'd be getting fascisted.
> 
> Basically, yea, it feels bad. But I can't get into that. I may just decide to stop sometime. I feel like I reject everything. And I've always been hateful. I seem to like something to hate. Or not really actively be in a state of hate against, but I will have pent up tension or pain that I'll release. I think we all do it. We project our world onto what others are saying. We are all tossing shapes up into the air and sometimes it is more like pareidolia what others see. What we see. I don't know. I'm talking bullshit.
> As always.
> 
> But yes.
> Meat eating is in ways bad.
> But so are we. Sinful.
> 
> And anal sex is wrong. I mean really. But it is pretty cool. At least the last time I did it.
> Damn.



did you ever read the link about soylent?

http://www.soylent.me/


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> For once I agree. I don't think you can get rid of the ego completely, you can just purify and refine it. The way I see it part of living in this world is to experience yourself as an ego, or separate self, and learn from it as it's an experience that can't be had in the higher dimensions.
> 
> When you die I think you hang up your ego for a while and take it up again when you come into a new life where you have to re-start where you left off. But without an ego it wouldn't be possible to preoject yourself as a personality or defend yourself against others.



I think there are many Egos just like mine.  When I die, life hangs up my ego, but its potential to emerge within a new frame of reference will continue to exist and manifest itself in countless others.


----------



## Erikmen

socko said:


> Haha yo uliked that too Ninae?
> Do you ever notice that people who eat a lot of meat stink? Pork-eaters are the worst and smell like rancid pork grease.



Lots of people feels the same about some countries in Europe like in France or Scandinavia and their shower routines. 
Although I don't believe it, in some countries, perfume is a must.

It's common sense in a lot of these countries to shower twice max 3 times a week. 
Bad for the skin and bad weather. 
Not insulting anyone, I've lived in Europe and it's cultural.

No more different than suggesting that meat eaters stink..


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> No offense, but the way you boast of destroying your ego sounds ironically egoic.  We are one;  but you and I are not the same.  You are you, and I am me.  We can only do our best to minimize egoic tendencies of self centered thinking and selfishness, but we are never without our ego.  Enlightenment isn't about destroying the ego, its about avoiding our tendency to attach all of our identity to our conscious thoughts. Our ego is the facade of our personality.   Its an inherent part of our consciousness.  I am unsure how a person would function without some sense of individuality.


the ego is a illusion. we have no core, the self is simply a idea, a mental formation, a thought. but when you tune into right now, whats left? the knower. but the knower, if you dissect it, isnt something we own either. yet we try to own that body, those thoughts and support the sense of self and satisfy what the me wants. as soon a desire is fulfilled, theres another one following. its a never ending  chase to please something that isnt real.
enlightenment is end of all stress and suffering, liberation, freedom, end of all delusions. dukkha is our steady companion and is our greatest teacher.


----------



## Erikmen

True, it makes sense.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> the ego is a illusion. we have no core, the self is simply a idea, a mental formation, a thought. but when you tune into right now, whats left? the knower. but the knower, if you dissect it, isnt something we own either. yet we try to own that body, those thoughts and support the sense of self and satisfy what the me wants. as soon a desire is fulfilled, theres another one following. its a never ending chase to please something that isnt real.
> enlightenment is end of all stress and suffering, liberation, freedom, end of all delusions. dukkha is our steady companion and is our greatest teacher.



The ego may be illusory, but that doesn't prevent it from being functional.
Ego is not a dirty word. It, like everything, is a necessary part of the giant machine / giant illusion.
Without ego, the human race never would have developed to a point where enlightenment (as you describe it) became logistically possible.
Furthermore, monks live in buildings and wear robes. This (fashion / architecture) is all a result of people with egos, that you seem to take for granted... ? When you become a monk, why not go further than the standard monk lifestyle and go without clothes / shelter / etc?
The self isn't just an idea, it's a huge part of our biological functionality.

The entire universe might be illusory, but we can't do without the entire universe.


----------



## socko

Erikmen said:


> Lots of people feels the same about some countries in Europe like in France or Scandinavia and their shower routines.
> Although I don't believe it, in some countries, perfume is a must.
> .....


It's true.  Many people here have medival bathing habits. I did too when I was living in a cabin off the grid because it was too cold not to. Taking a bath in a stream with ice and snow floating around in it HURTS. And it's too much trouble to heat bath water everyday. And it washes away oils your skin needs to stay warm.


----------



## Abject

Spices make you smell much more than meat (and other foods)
Some fish are particularly stinky but if u eat durian you'll reek, so I don't see what the hell smell has to do with it.
Whether you're talking sweat, farts/shit, or breath, all three are gonna smell bad no matter what you eat.

I'd say vegans and vegetarians are more likely to have tooth decay due to sugar intake than those on balanced diets.


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> The ego may be illusory, but that doesn't prevent it from being functional.
> Ego is not a dirty word. It, like everything, is a necessary part of the giant machine / giant illusion.
> Without ego, the human race never would have developed to a point where enlightenment (as you describe it) became logistically possible.
> Furthermore, monks live in buildings and wear robes. This (fashion / architecture) is all a result of people with egos, that you seem to take for granted... ? When you become a monk, why not go further than the standard monk lifestyle and go without clothes / shelter / etc?
> The self isn't just an idea, it's a huge part of our biological functionality.
> 
> The entire universe might be illusory, but we can't do without the entire universe.


the ego is much more then just functional, it dictates every moment of our life, every choice we make is based upon what the self craves and wants. then, feeding the ego creates attachment. the more we satisfy a need we believe we need, the more we crave. the more we crave, the more we suffer.  because we creates more and more dependency upon conditioned phenomena to find happiness. we becomes less and less free and more and more attached and dependant upon this body and the sense contact to gain satisfaction. its a never ending circle as this body will die. we base our happiness upon something that will end. then there the present moment and how to attain and tune to it. this present moment can only be experience when we shrink that ego, when we stop that thinking, comparing, creating.

the ego, the sense of self, the me is not real and is one of the main cause of everything we do: we try to satisfy something that isnt even real: it brings a lot of stress. how can there be a problem if theres no me, no I, no sense of self? 

the ego is a mental formation, there's no reality to the self we think we own. if you peel your self and must look for a self, you wont find any. even the knower is something that always change. thoughts just comes up, feeling just comes up. thoughts are just thoughts, feelings are just feelings, consciousness comes and goes: we dont own anything. however, theres some things in life that will undoubtedly brings suffering, guilt, stress if we think and do those things and we must know how to stop to crave what creates negative feeling/thoughts/actions.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> the ego is a illusion. we have no core, the self is simply a idea, a mental formation, a thought. but when you tune into right now, whats left? the knower. but the knower, if you dissect it, isnt something we own either. yet we try to own that body, those thoughts and support the sense of self and satisfy what the me wants. as soon a desire is fulfilled, theres another one following. its a never ending  chase to please something that isnt real.
> enlightenment is end of all stress and suffering, liberation, freedom, end of all delusions. dukkha is our steady companion and is our greatest teacher.



what makes something real?


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> Meat does lower your vibrational energy and holds you back to some degree if you're spiritually ambitious. I know most will argue this but I don't care. I think it's true.



Ahh, so its not a moral high horse, it about attaining a "higher" vibrational energy.  So, its about being spiritually ambitious?

I kid, i kid, just bustin your balls/ovaries.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> the ego is much more then just functional, it dictates every moment of our life, every choice we make is based upon what the self craves and wants. then, feeding the ego creates attachment. the more we satisfy a need we believe we need, the more we crave. the more we crave, the more we suffer.  because we creates more and more dependency upon conditioned phenomena to find happiness. we becomes less and less free and more and more attached and dependant upon this body and the sense contact to gain satisfaction. its a never ending circle as this body will die. we base our happiness upon something that will end. then there the present moment and how to attain and tune to it. this present moment can only be experience when we shrink that ego, when we stop that thinking, comparing, creating.
> 
> the ego, the sense of self, the me is not real and is one of the main cause of everything we do: we try to satisfy something that isnt even real: it brings a lot of stress. how can there be a problem if theres no me, no I, no sense of self?
> 
> the ego is a mental formation, there's no reality to the self we think we own. if you peel your self and must look for a self, you wont find any. even the knower is something that always change. thoughts just comes up, feeling just comes up. thoughts are just thoughts, feelings are just feelings, consciousness comes and goes: we dont own anything. however, theres some things in life that will undoubtedly brings suffering, guilt, stress if we think and do those things and we must know how to stop to crave what creates negative feeling/thoughts/actions.



weren't you just saying ego was not real?  IMO, my body is the one thing that I know belongs to me.  It also belongs to humanity, to the mammal family, and it belongs to all sorts of micro-organisms that have made it their home.   My body is one of the most influential components of my personality, but it belongs to the world, the world doesn't belong to me.  My personality interdepends on my interaction with my external environment.  I am nothing without the world, but the world will still be the world whether I exist or not. I am not equal to the world, thats why I revere its magnificance the way I do.  There is so many higher powers than my own measily conscious efforts.  That's why I don't subscribe to Ego worship.  I only accept it as part of the human condition, and give a sincere effort to avoid it by seeking impartiality and objectivity to the genuine limits of my human mind while trying my best not to underestimate these limitations.

  The word "I" when I use it to refer to me, certainly represents a particular frame of reference that is attached to  my body.  Congruent components may interact in a similar system that creates the features of myself that I most identify with, but it seems rather obvious that the personality type that emerges as similar variations within a group(the group "I") supercedes the "I" that refers to this particular experience occuring within this particular nervous system.


----------



## GodandLove

ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> 
> Nobody lives their life with no sense of right and wrong,



I do.




ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> Everybody has a moral compass.



I make an effort not to have one.



ForEverAfter said:


> That sounds amazing, but - really - it's bullshit.
> There are things that are off limits for you.
> You are just as human as the rest of us.



No, it's not bullshit. It's truth. Believe it or not though, on the subatomic level, you and I share the same consistency as bullshit. So in a semantic way, you're partially right.

But no, Nothing is off limits for me. I may possess a human body, but that doesn't mean I'm like the rest of you. For all you know I'm a Daemon body snatcher.



ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> 
> I'd wager that you'd have moral issues with stealing from the poor or taking advantage of vulnerable people.
> If not, then you're not a very good person IMO.



Yes, as much as it saddens me to admit, I would indeed have "moral" issues with someone stealing from the poor. But just because I as an individual have moral issues with something doesn't give me the right to project my moral issues onto others and oppose their free will. My moral perceptions ARE NOT MANDATORY UNIVERSAL LAW, they are independent variables. I have a much bigger moral issue with someone opposing another's free will than I do with someone stealing from the poor. That's just me though. Morals are not constants, they are temporary restraints.  



ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> 
> Morality is an "illusion" as much as everything is illusory... But we need to maintain the illusion, all of us.
> We can recognize that everything is meaningless, in other words, but can't live that way.



Why would we need to maintain one specific illusion? This is infinity, we have an entire buffet of illusions to choose from. Why stick with one for the rest of eternity? I mean, what an absolute waste of infinity.



ForEverAfter said:


> God&Love, (Re: what is quoted above)
> 
> Your sarcastic post about willow eating meat indicates, to me, that you're not particularly enlightened.



My post to willow was not sarcastic. It was genuine and sincere.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Ninae said:


> It tends to give rotten breath and more body odour. But just think of all the rotting meat and fish inside the body. Rotten vegetables still don't smell anything that bad.



I doof with a majority vego crowd and I can assure you those hippies smell like shit. It might be their mistaken belief that showering is _unnatural_, but there is no disguising their ranchard stench. 

Crystals are no substitute for deodorant, no matter how they vibrate


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> how did I over-react?  Are you now over-reacting to my over_reaction?



No.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> No.


exactly.


----------



## What 23

One Thousand Words said:


> I doof with a majority vego crowd and I can assure you those hippies smell like shit. It might be their mistaken belief that showering is _unnatural_, but there is no disguising their ranchard stench.
> 
> Crystals are no substitute for deodorant, no matter how they vibrate



I notice since eating meat that my breath is worse, no matter what I do. When I ate just about pure hemp seeds I didn't have the breath odor. But it is bad. I wonder if it is protein content.

One of the reasons I switched diets, to be a vegetarian when I was, was that a girl visited me who was vegetarian, didn't shower for like three or four days, and didn't wreak to high heavens. I thought there was something to it. Not sure. Maybe it was her physiology (and she is native American... Whites and Blacks have worse B.O. naturally generally than Asians...).

I can attest rotting vegetables can smell pretty horrible. Especially beans, from what I may have experienced.

Deodorant isn't needed. I just wash with baking soda, and don't need to shower for at least two days. I've gone four and I don't stink nearly as bad as I did when I used soap and tried to go a day or so. 

Oh... Ha- Baking soda are crystals :D. I get no complaints.


----------



## swilow

^On your pure hemp seed diet, did you feel well? Energetic? Dull? It seems to be somewhat risky IM(limited)O, but I am for some reason intrigued by extreme singularity of action.



turkalurk said:


> exactly.



Spot on.


----------



## Erikmen

socko said:


> It's true.  Many people here have medival bathing habits. I did too when I was living in a cabin off the grid because it was too cold not to. Taking a bath in a stream with ice and snow floating around in it HURTS. And it's too much trouble to heat bath water everyday. And it washes away oils your skin needs to stay warm.



Not really like that at all. You have a great heating system just like any state in US. Make your own excuses. I had always taken a shower as I enjoy it.
 Beside, Europe is not as cold as it gets in States and Canada. North America is way more freezing than Europe, unless you are in northern Europe. Northern than Stockholm or Oslo, way north.
 Or up in the Alps. Nevertheless, not that cold. It rains much more than snow, when it snows it's too humid and hardly constantly lower than 32F or 0 c.

About the icy lake, it's not a shower, I have done it. It's something you have to learn how to do and once you do it can be quite refreshing. 
Normally you jump after a hot Sauna. It's an excellent rush and indeed good for the skin, but it's not a shower.
You need to do it right, don't let you head get wet. 
A lot of experienced old folks can teach you how so that you don't feel it burning.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> what makes something real?


we would have to agree on the definition of real. material are all impermanent. they have a reality. the material reality is real in that sense.
the idea of a self, a entity, is not real though.
there is suffering but no sufferer. there is the deed but no doer, there is the path but nobody to enter it. ect.

corelesness (non-self) is one of the three characteristic of existence: impermanence, stress/suffering/insatisfaction, corelesness.



turkalurk said:


> weren't you just saying ego was not real?  IMO, my body is the one thing that I know belongs to me.  It also belongs to humanity, to the mammal family, and it belongs to all sorts of micro-organisms that have made it their home.   My body is one of the most influential components of my personality, but it belongs to the world, the world doesn't belong to me.  My personality interdepends on my interaction with my external environment.  I am nothing without the world, but the world will still be the world whether I exist or not. I am not equal to the world, thats why I revere its magnificance the way I do.  There is so many higher powers than my own measily conscious efforts.  That's why I don't subscribe to Ego worship.  I only accept it as part of the human condition, and give a sincere effort to avoid it by seeking impartiality and objectivity to the genuine limits of my human mind while trying my best not to underestimate these limitations.
> 
> The word "I" when I use it to refer to me, certainly represents a particular frame of reference that is attached to  my body.  Congruent components may interact in a similar system that creates the features of myself that I most identify with, but it seems rather obvious that the personality type that emerges as similar variations within a group(the group "I") supercedes the "I" that refers to this particular experience occuring within this particular nervous system.


definitely, the idea of a self must take a back seat. there is much more important thing in life then me. to experience reality and the moment present, we must give up a lot of ego/thoughts.

about the body belonging to you. your heart is you, your bladder, your lungs, your nose. all you? so you have many self. or yourself is a conglomorate of many things that you put together and call, me! the me is a mental fomation.


----------



## What 23

I felt good. Not dull at all. It wasn't the healthiest diet, and I got down to <120 lbs. I would try to supplement things (vitamin c, calcium) but often it was the singular source of food. 

My body was definitely taxed and stressed, for as long as I did it (2-3 years). But the fats in it provide good energy. Smoking weed became more euphoric, or seemed to, as if having the plant in my body, having this uniform diet more or less was good. Any time I added other food and smoked it was as if my energy was compromised. 

I don't know. I do think hemp seeds are a wonderful food. If I could I would still eat them a lot (I still use about 8 oz of hemp seed oil every 2-3 days) That and strawberries/avocados : ). I'd love to be able to be a vegan/vegetarian.... But I would very likely occasionally at least eat meat. Mainly salmon. Pescatarian. I have never been big on meat, to be honest. Shrimp. I ate a lot of chicken, but I didn't miss it when I stopped. I also ate beef (and it was probably a lot the spices, and the fat and unique to numinants fat such as CLA), but didn't miss it either.


----------



## socko

Erikmen said:


> Not really light that at all. You have a great heating system just like any state in US.
> About the icy lake, it's not a shower, I have done it. It's something you know do once you know how and, normally you jump after the Sauna. It's quite refreshing but it's not a shower.
> You need to do it right, don't let you head get wet. A lot of experienced old folks can teach you how so that you don't feel it burning.


What I was trying to imply is that a lot of people have bad hygiene and therefore stink whether or not they eat meat. France is a first world country, and everyone has access to hot water, soap, and deodorant. Some people choose not to use those things.

When I was at the cabin, I didn't have a sauna. I could put a lot of wood in the stove and heat the cabin up like one, but when it is below freezing outside ande the water is at the freezing point, and you are standing barefoot or in sandals in the snow or dancing around on a towel to keep from getting frostbite on your toes, it hurts every time. I did it for a year, including the entire winter, and it never got less painful. I tried all the tricks I could think to do like keeping my head dry, staying in for only a few seconds, sponging, moving fast, etc.  I have virtually no body fat for insulation, unlike the "polar bears" in pictures I've seen. I had to get used to the pain. If there is a painless way to do it, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## What 23

Again I say... Soap and deodorant aren't needed.


----------



## socko

What 23 said:


> Again I say... Soap and deodorant aren't needed.


Depends on the situation. I had this gf who didn't use soap or deodorant. She wanted me to eat her vagoo. Instead, I ended up puking on her. She cried, I left, we broke up.


----------



## One Thousand Words

Don't kid yourself that people don't think you stink. It is very rare for polite people to inform even their close friends that they smell. It's takes an extremely confident person to destroy another human being like that

This week alone I had two women comment on the fact that I smelled nice. I can assure you that I use more than baking powder and natural pheromones to attract the opposite sex.


----------



## swilow

In terms of meat that I miss, it would be chicken. Every now and then I get an urge for it. Easily resisted though.


----------



## socko

One Thousand Words said:


> Don't kid yourself that people don't think you stink. It is very rare for polite people to inform even their close friends that they smell. It's takes an extremely confident person to destroy another human being like that
> .


 What kind of friend lets a friend go around stinking? It is your duty as a good friend to politely tell them they have a problem they need to take care of. If it were me stinking, I would be angry if they didn't tell me. 
There is someone at work who reeks like meat sandwiches that have turned sour, and he sweats out rancid pork grease all day. I don't like him for other reasons so I avoid him and never say a word. Other people seem to be uncomfortable to be around him, and in the 6 weeks he has been here, I assume everyone else is too polite to tell him because he hasn't stopped stinking.


----------



## What 23

Soap messes with our natural biome. As long as you shower semi regularly it isn't really needed. I use baking soda. There is much on this subject.

The skin is an organ. All the chemicals we dump on it many of us on a daily basis is bad for it and us, and can make us smell worse/less able to deal with stuff.

I find synthetics absolutely disgusting, revolting, and frankly I want to commit mass murder against those who use them. Or at least force them to change or eat a bullet.

I agree some people really stink. I'm saying I can go a week at this point before I smell as bad as most do in about two days. Not that you want to bury your face in my ass.

I do usually shower before going on dates.. I would much prefer to smell the girl I'm on a date with, than some shit made in a factory/lab.


----------



## socko

I'm not trying to make you feel bad, and maybe you have already done this and are sure of yourself, but maybe from time to time, you should ask a close friend to make sure you smell OK.  
Also, I agree on the synthetics being disgusting. Some people use certain soaps, body washes, laundry detergents that make my eyes burn and my nose run.


----------



## What 23

I have. My mom/dad would tell me, too. My mom definitely would... Not that she can smell much though over the crap she dumps on herself.

If the world shifted and I didn't have access to clean running water, I would try to find clay, and I would coat my body in it. At least the nether regions and maybe my face.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> we would have to agree on the definition of real. material are all impermanent. they have a reality. the material reality is real in that sense.
> the idea of a self, a entity, is not real though.
> there is suffering but no sufferer. there is the deed but no doer, there is the path but nobody to enter it. ect.
> 
> corelesness (non-self) is one of the three characteristic of existence: impermanence, stress/suffering/insatisfaction, corelesness.
> 
> 
> definitely, the idea of a self must take a back seat. there is much more important thing in life then me. to experience reality and the moment present, we must give up a lot of ego/thoughts.
> 
> about the body belonging to you. your heart is you, your bladder, your lungs, your nose. all you? so you have many self. or yourself is a conglomorate of many things that you put together and call, me! the me is a mental fomation.



it is a mental impression representing something real.  Therefore, it is an allusion of the real, as it is experienced indirectly through sensory processing.  The illusion of separating things serves a functional purpose.  The ego is as real as anything else, the illusion is believing your reality is actuality.  Objective reality is mysterious.  Objectively, we are all one reality.  But, we are not in a position to see this reality.  We can keep climbing to a more objective position, but we can't project our consciousness outside of existence.  We can only imagine ourselves on the outside looking in.  But, we are never actually on the outside.  We are always on the inside looking out imagining what is real and what is not real.  Too much focus on objectivity and you can lose sight of yourself.  Too much focus on yourself and you neglect the other.  Its about a balance and harmony.  Self preservation in balance with empathy and compassion.  Too much self preservation and you destroy the other.  Too much empathy and you destroy your self.  

In other words, I do agree that there is no seperate component that makes up the self.  My ego disagrees that the Ego is not real.  I believe that it is an emergent property of our nervous system, as is every experience created our brain.   I think calling Ego an illusion is misleading.  I think there is a difference between saying there is no permanent self and there is no self.  Only the entire system of existence(actuality) and nonexistence(potentiality) is permanent.  Even this moment is just another expression of our subjective experience   of perceiving time.    According to your logic, even this moment is not real as it is a mental abstraction of something that already occured.  By the time you process the stimulus enough to become consciously aware of the moment, the moment has since passed.


----------



## swilow

Nothing wrong with smelling natural IMO. There is a problem with smelling like you haven't cleaned yourself. I went to work with a guy that only bathed once a fortnight and his odour would emnate through the entire workplace. He was aware of it but considered it to be other peoples problem. Sweat doesn't smell bad to me, but dried and caked on sweat with sweat on top does smell awful. This guys smelled unclean. 

I wear deodorant under my arms and I spray a bit of stuff on my clothing after smoking.


----------



## Erikmen

That's what most people would do. Keep yourself clean, for pleasure or/and to live and work with others..


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> it is a mental impression representing something real.  Therefore, it is an allusion of the real, as it is experienced indirectly through sensory processing.  The illusion of separating things serves a functional purpose.  The ego is as real as anything else, the illusion is believing your reality is actuality.  Objective reality is mysterious.  Objectively, we are all one reality.  But, we are not in a position to see this reality.  We can keep climbing to a more objective position, but we can't project our consciousness outside of existence.  We can only imagine ourselves on the outside looking in.  But, we are never actually on the outside.  We are always on the inside looking out imagining what is real and what is not real.  Too much focus on objectivity and you can lose sight of yourself.  Too much focus on yourself and you neglect the other.  Its about a balance and harmony.  Self preservation in balance with empathy and compassion.  Too much self preservation and you destroy the other.  Too much empathy and you destroy your self.
> 
> In other words, I do agree that there is no seperate component that makes up the self.  My ego disagrees that the Ego is not real.  I believe that it is an emergent property of our nervous system, as is every experience created our brain.   I think calling Ego an illusion is misleading.  I think there is a difference between saying there is no permanent self and there is no self.  Only the entire system of existence(actuality) and nonexistence(potentiality) is permanent.  Even this moment is just another expression of our subjective experience   of perceiving time.    According to your logic, even this moment is not real as it is a mental abstraction of something that already occured.  By the time you process the stimulus enough to become consciously aware of the moment, the moment has since passed.


Id say that relative truth based on our experience of reality thru the 5 senses is not objective reality, its relative. its conditioned and more importantly, it will end.
I think there a objective reality in that everyone can find it and that we all have access to that objective reality.
objective reality, at least in bouddhism, is nibbana.
also, theres stage of insight. the first insight of nobody there (nibbana) doesnt enlightened oneself, but it shows him that theres a reality without the me. thats why they say: there is the path, but nobody to enter it. 

the ego is everything we think we are. but as soon as we try to remove layers of the self, everything that you take as me, you realize that all that is left is the knower. then you look at what the knower is. where is the knower when asleep. or, what and who was the knower when I was 5, 10, 15 years old. that was all me? at 5, I thought I knew everything, at 15, less so, and at 25, I know I know nothing really. so all that knower was me? impossible. the self is a mental formation. there no you, no self. nothing to protect as nothing is your own.

to experience this moment fully, mindfulness and stilness of mind is mandatory. we need to go below the surface of thoughts, sense-contact, feelings and reach our inner being.


----------



## swilow

I used to dumpster dive so I am accepting of bad odours.


----------



## One Thousand Words

What 23 said:


> I have. My mom/dad would tell me, too. My mom definitely would... Not that she can smell much though over the crap she dumps on herself.
> 
> If the world shifted and I didn't have access to clean running water, I would try to find clay, and I would coat my body in it. At least the nether regions and maybe my face.



And you will die a virgin


----------



## What 23

My apartment smells bad because I don't take trash out very often. I just don't produce very much that I don't think is recycleable. So often there is rotting meat smell. But it ain't me. Haha.


----------



## What 23

Dude no. I've had sex with like 50. :D

If you think from what I wrote I'm young and live with mom and dad I don't/am not.. They are just more or less my closest friends.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> Id say that relative truth based on our experience of reality thru the 5 senses is not objective reality, its relative. its conditioned and more importantly, it will end.
> I think there a objective reality in that everyone can find it and that we all have access to that objective reality.
> objective reality, at least in bouddhism, is nibbana.
> 
> to experience this moment fully, mindfulness and stilness of mind is mandatory. we need to go below the surface of thoughts, sense-contact and reach our inner being.



i think nirvana is a feature of brain funtioning that results when the self is supressed, but is still an experience of reality and is still subjectively experience.  It is an experience of a more transcended sense of self, but still a sensation occuring in the brain when parietal brain activity is decreased.



> University of Missouri
> 
> Selflessness - The Core of All Major World Religions - Has Neuropsychological Connection, MU Study Finds
> Dec. 17, 2008
> Story Contact:  Jennifer Faddis, (573) 882-6217, FaddisJ@missouri.edu
> COLUMBIA, Mo. – All spiritual experiences are based in the brain. That statement is truer than ever before, according to a University of Missouri neuropsychologist. An MU study has data to support a neuropsychological model that proposes spiritual experiences associated with selflessness are related to decreased activity in the right parietal lobe of the brain. The study is one of the first to use individuals with traumatic brain injury to determine this connection. Researchers say the implication of this connection means people in many disciplines, including peace studies, health care or religion can learn different ways to attain selflessness, to experience transcendence, and to help themselves and others.
> This study, along with other recent neuroradiological studies of Buddhist meditators and Francescan nuns, suggests that all individuals, regardless of cultural background or religion, experience the same neuropsychological functions during spiritual experiences, such as transcendence. Transcendence, feelings of universal unity and decreased sense of self, is a core tenet of all major religions. Meditation and prayer are the primary vehicles by which such spiritual transcendence is achieved.
> “The brain functions in a certain way during spiritual experiences,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the MU School of Health Professions. “We studied people with brain injury and found that people with injuries to the right parietal lobe of the brain reported higher levels of spiritual experiences, such as transcendence.”
> This link is important, Johnstone said, because it means selflessness can be learned by decreasing activity in that part of the brain. He suggests this can be done through conscious effort, such as meditation or prayer


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> My apartment smells bad because I don't take trash out very often. I just don't produce very much that I don't think is recycleable. So often there is rotting meat smell. But it ain't me. Haha.



you must be quite the ladies man if you can cover your balls and face in clay and still get laid!


----------



## murphythecat

I believe theres mind and body, connected sure, but very distinct and separated.
you realize nibbana or enlightenment with your consciousness, not with the body and the body has nothing to do with state of concentration, purifications, mindfulness ect.





turkalurk said:


> i think nirvana is a feature of brain funtioning that results when the self is supressed, but is still an experience of reality and is still subjectively experience.  It is an experience of a more transcended sense of self, but still a sensation occuring in the brain when parietal brain activity is decreased.


also, nibbana is unconditioned reality. objective reality can only be unconditioned, otherwise it couldnt be objective.
concentration, meditation, mindfulness are all states that are conditioned.
but a important aspect of nibbana is that its unconditioned. to say it differently, its always available no matter the conditioned state we found ourselve in. 
here some interesting reading http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html


----------



## socko

What 23 said:


> My apartment smells bad because I don't take trash out very often. .....So often there is rotting meat smell. But it ain't me. Haha.


If it gets bad enough, the rotten smell in your apartment will saturate your clothes and hair, and some people will be able smell it. I know from experience.


----------



## One Thousand Words

turkalurk said:


> you must be quite the ladies man if you can cover your balls and face in clay and still get laid!



Haha


----------



## What 23

socko said:


> If it gets bad enough, the rotten smell in your apartment will saturate your clothes and hair, and some people will be able smell it. I know from experience.



Thanks for the advice. I need to invest in a different method of disposing the waste. Trash bags too big. It actually isn't a common problem but lately I've been buying meat with bone in because it is less expensive... Thing is, those bones I could use too, but I just haven't developed the process.


----------



## What 23

turkalurk said:


> you must be quite the ladies man if you can cover your balls and face in clay and still get laid!



I was voted hottest guy in my school, back in high school, by cheerleaders. I'm often told I look like Nick Cage so

I don't get it.
I'm not great looking. I have a crooked nose and thinning hair.

But back then I had my choice. Now my choice is largely limited by my self confidence. And I usually dont feel awesome and pain free so I don't bother with girls I actually want for more than a night or two, or whenever.

I haven't done the clay thing. But I would.


----------



## socko

> I* need to invest in a different method of disposing the waste. Trash bags too big. It actually isn't a common problem but lately I've been buying meat with bone in because it is less expensive... Thing is, those bones I could use too, but I just haven't developed the process.*


I know somebody who uses the plastic bags groceries come in as trash bags.  If you have meat with bones, you can put it in the little bag, wrap it tightly, and put it in the freezer until you feel like taking it out. For things that dont rot, hang one from the inside of a cupboard unseen. They're small so nothing builds up long enough to rot. They are free, and by re-using them as trash bags, you are not being wasteful.


----------



## What 23

Good idea! Freezer. I don't use it anyways.


----------



## One Thousand Words

How about taking your rubbish to the bin before it starts to smell you fucking degenerates. 

Next you'll be telling me you piss in bottles because you are too lazy to walk to the bathroom


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I believe theres mind and body, connected sure, but very distinct and separated.
> you realize nibbana or enlightenment with your consciousness, not with the body and the body has nothing to do with state of concentration, purifications, mindfulness ect.



Sorry, maybe its my lack of comprehension skills, but I have a hard time following your logic without experiencing cognitive dissonance.  How is something connected and seperate?  If the mind is connected to the body but distinct and seperated, does that mean that your mind exists without the body?  Will the person that everyone seems to associate with your human experience continue to exist when you die?  If there is no self behind a name or a personality, does that mean you will not mourn when your loved ones die?  If no individual is real, then why care about any individual's suffering?  their suffering is just an illusion.


----------



## swilow

What 23 said:


> Good idea! Freezer. I don't use it anyways.



Doesn't that seem like excessively fussy laziness? Just chuck your rubbish in the bin :D

Though I am a supporter of extreme laziness, but my desires to not perform work of any sort often involve a level of planning and execution that entails more expenditure of effort then the alternative.


----------



## turkalurk

What 23 said:


> I don't get it.
> I'm not great looking. I have a crooked nose and thinning hair.



This much, I believe.


----------



## What 23

One Thousand Words said:


> How about taking your rubbish to the bin before it starts to smell you fucking degenerates.
> 
> Next you'll be telling me you piss in bottles because you are too lazy to walk to the bathroom



In my last apartment my neighbor was one of those bitches that used synthetic shower products and stuff and the smell contaminated my bathroom, which was next to hers, so I shut the bathroom door and tried to cover the holes, and peed in a glass in the kitchen and dumped it down the sink. I'd wear a respirator to take a dump if I needed to when there was still fragrance around.

She is what I would call degenerate. Consumer trash.

The big bin is down the road. I don't feel like going there every day. And as said trash bags are big. Sometimes I visit the big bin once every two weeks. I don't always have meat waste/don't always buy with bone in, and that is about all I eat that can rot (that I don't eat parts of... I don't produce a ton of food waste at all/I don't make food and not finish it, hardly ever. If I do it goes down the disposal). Anyways.


----------



## One Thousand Words

I get embarressed if I've cooked salmon the night before and my cleaner comes in to be faced with a fish smell. I don't think I could live in the same squaller you do


----------



## socko

What 23 said:


> In my last apartment my neighbor was one of those bitches that used synthetic shower products and stuff and the smell contaminated my bathroom, which was next to hers, so I shut the bathroom door and tried to cover the holes, and peed in a glass in the kitchen and dumped it down the sink. I'd wear a respirator to take a dump if I needed to when there was still fragrance around.
> 
> She is what I would call degenerate. Consumer trash.
> 
> The big bin is down the road. I don't feel like going there every day. And as said trash bags are big. Sometimes I visit the big bin once every two weeks. I don't always have meat waste/don't always buy with bone in, and that is about all I eat that can rot. Anyways.


 I've read that Gatorade bottles work best for piss. And at the end of the day, you can water that neighbor's flowers with the contents of the bottle.

As long as you don't need to keep anything else in the freezer, you can leave the bones in there for years and they will never rot or stink. It could be a way to get revenge if you have a bad landlord.


----------



## What 23

One Thousand Words said:


> I get embarressed if I've cooked salmon the night before and my cleaner comes in to be faced with a fish smell. I don't think I could live in the same squaller you do



You probably couldn't. If I could afford a cleaner I would have a cleaner (as long as she, or he just used vinegar and basic stuff... Iso alcohol if needed). My dad had a housewife. Not that he didn't help.


----------



## What 23

socko said:


> I've read that Gatorade bottles work best for piss. And at the end of the day, you can water that neighbor's flowers with the contents of the bottle.
> 
> As long as you don't need to keep anything else in the freezer, you can leave the bones in there for years and they will never rot or stink. It could be a way to get revenge if you have a bad landlord.



I did ask them to fix my shower like four times. Never happened.

That pretty much began my not showering regularly (daily) experiment, since I have to go to the gym to shower.


----------



## Erikmen

Lol


----------



## swilow

One Thousand Words said:


> I get embarressed if I've cooked salmon the night before and my cleaner comes in to be faced with a fish smell



I know that my butler is particularly offended by that fishy odour.


----------



## socko

What 23 said:


> I did ask them to fix my shower like four times. Never happened.
> 
> That pretty much began my not showering regularly (daily) experiment, since I have to go to the gym to shower.


Isn't it illegal for them to do that to you? Can't you report them?


----------



## swilow

I like what you bring to the table Socko


----------



## What 23

Yea... I would have to ask them again. It has been a year. 

I guess in a way I let it happen. I know that the body absorbs toxins from water and my city has issues with pesticide or herbicide run off. My brother works at the water company, and recently posted about their process. My city doesn't have a great record for water quality. Not that it is horrible... But if I drink the water I get a bit ill feeling momentarily.

Anyways water here isn't something I really want to stand in daily when I think of it. I like a good hot soak and scrub but I just don't feel I need it as often anymore.  But I would probably do it. Because I love standing in hot water. My back is red from burning. Chest. 

So this is almost a self control thing too. I let it happen, as a way of keeping it out of reach.

And I'm afraid of the process of what the repair would be. The chemicals used to do it. I'd have to leave for a few days or so while it dried. 
They forgot to glaze it. There was just paint. I didn't recognize it.

Anyways.

It would be nice to get a settlement or something. Reduced rent+months free.


----------



## What 23

Murphy, you eat eggs. Were you aware that the egg industry kills off millions of baby chicks who aren't viable? Male chicks basically get grinded to death, I guess. Germany just put a stop to it.

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/germany-stops-shredding-chicks.php


----------



## Journyman16

turkalurk said:


> I'm not the one claiming it matters. I'm the one that says only a deuchebag would point out those kinds of errors and act like they matter. Its a shallow criticism when you correct a mistake that does not change the meaning of an argument. Its a distraction away from the argument.  Its fallacious, because its an attempt to diminish credibility on irrelevant grounds.


Clearly reading is not your forté either. :D

I did not claim it matter, I pointed out no errors (except your 'punctuation' one later on, mostly for the irony) I corrected no mistakes, and it is more irony you claim I distracted from the debate as at least I included on topic conversation in my post - unlike this one of yours. And I diminished nobody's credibility. 

And I'm guessing you don't know enough grammar to follow through on your implied offer to correct my English... :D 

Pretty much a fail all around... :D

The worst place I found for smelly people was Paris - I figure it must be why they got into perfumes so heavily. And Paris is not renowned for a vegetarian diet as a city - lotsa meat, lots of meat-based sauces etc. But it wasn't meat I smelt it was unwashed bodies, mostly with an attempt to cover it with rather sickly smells some might call fragrances.

The Chinese have a very low intake of meat generally and I found they also had an odour I wasn't too fond of. 

I think diet makes a big difference to how people smell and I even have a theory we only got civilisation running properly once we learned to wash regularly - if you meet someone who doesn't have a diet similar to your own, they smell.

I've known veggies who smell sweet as, and meat eaters also. I have also met the ones who have decided for some reason water is a bad thing to use on their bodies and it doesn't matter what they eat or don't eat, they stink after a couple of days. Thank god most of them still use toilet paper or we'd be shooting them in the streets. :D

IMV we are omnivores, born & bred (& perhaps designed if that floats your boat :D) and sometimes we eat meat and sometimes we don't. The amount of work that has to go into designing a veggie diet that gives us all our daily needs suggests to me that it is entirely natural for us to eat meat. So many of the manipulations of the veggie diet are to augment things lacking that a good meat and veggie diet gives us easily.

If you choose to not eat meat, that's fine by me. Do it for moral grounds or for spiritual beliefs, but let's not pretend it is somehow natural. We are not carnivores but nor are we herbivores and almost everything about our body design tells us that. 

If you choose to eat meat, do us all a favour and get active about getting rid of the battery-farms and horrible places that greed has built and start buying from people who care about their farms and animals etc. Buy free range, buy local, find a butcher instead of a supermarket.

It's not wrong to choose a life style. But it isn't right to slag off at others who chose one different from your own... :D


----------



## murphythecat

its very hard to explain in such resume style so its normal you cannot understand as it would take much more time to explain.
 mind and the body are separated. they are related, but separated in that mind is not generated by the body. mind (consciousness) is not generated by the brain. of course, consciousness is influenced by the brain input and the 5 senses (eye, smell, touch, ect), but when you still the mind in concentration meditation, it becomes clear that you experience the calming of the mind, the mind calms itself and you begin to experiment a reality that has nothing to do with the body. 

when you meditate, its clear that your mind is not the body and that the mind can be calmed.  theres no way you can walk if your mind doesnt say first: walk. mind over matter. the body is controlled by the mind.

if we decorticate what happens in life, it becomes evident that the mind can react to the body or can be trained to react differently to body input. for example, when the body feel sense contact he doesnt like: cold. it creates a feeling. your mind interpret the feeling  and decide I like it, or I dont like it, and then, the mind react and tells to the body move the body to escape that feeling. its always the same process. sense contact-feeling- reaction in the mind to that feeling  (positive or negative or neutral)- mind tells the body to move, or not. the body feels and the mind normally react almost automatically but with practice, you can learn to not react automatically and see that chain of cause and effect and stop being so concern with the body. you can train your mind just as much as you can train your body.

the body has a life of its own that the mind cannot control and vice versa. your body is bound to the law of nature: its bound to suffering, decay, death, old age.
your mind however is not bound to the same laws. you can create mind suffering with negative thoughts, or happy state of mind with thinking about love, compassion. ect.

your mind cannot tells your body to stop bleeding. or your body cannot decide for your mind to relax and stop thinking. they are in separated realities so to speak and can be totally independant. 
I'm french so its hard to explain perfectly in english!



turkalurk said:


> Sorry, maybe its my lack of comprehension skills, but I have a hard time following your logic without experiencing cognitive dissonance.  How is something connected and seperate?  If the mind is connected to the body but distinct and seperated, does that mean that your mind exists without the body?  Will the person that everyone seems to associate with your human experience continue to exist when you die?  If there is no self behind a name or a personality, does that mean you will not mourn when your loved ones die?  If no individual is real, then why care about any individual's suffering?  their suffering is just an illusion.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> Id say that relative truth based on our experience of reality thru the 5 senses is not objective reality, its relative. its conditioned and more importantly, it will end.
> I think there a objective reality in that everyone can find it and that we all have access to that objective reality.
> objective reality, at least in bouddhism, is nibbana.
> also, theres stage of insight. the first insight of nobody there (nibbana) doesnt enlightened oneself, but it shows him that theres a reality without the me. thats why they say: there is the path, but nobody to enter it.
> 
> the ego is everything we think we are. but as soon as we try to remove layers of the self, everything that you take as me, you realize that all that is left is the knower. then you look at what the knower is. where is the knower when asleep. or, what and who was the knower when I was 5, 10, 15 years old. that was all me? at 5, I thought I knew everything, at 15, less so, and at 25, I know I know nothing really. so all that knower was me? impossible. the self is a mental formation. there no you, no self. nothing to protect as nothing is your own.
> 
> to experience this moment fully, mindfulness and stilness of mind is mandatory. we need to go below the surface of thoughts, sense-contact, feelings and reach our inner being.



If I start removing enough layers, I will cease to be recognizable.  If you take away my brain, and remove my face, then I am no longer recognizable as me.  With out my frame of reference to this particular form of life, I have no reason to associate my identity with this personality.  The word "I" will still refer to this particular body, whether I remember my ego are not, because the I refers to my form as well as my functions.  The word "I" will still function as a reference to this particular organic system.  I  am not consciousness, I have it.  If I lost my body, my consciousness would be come something its not now.  I will have evolved into a different form of consciousness, and without memories of this life, then the " me" that I become is irrelevant.  You are not just an observer, you are a property of the observed.  Without form, there is no function.    If I peel away the layers of my body, I no longer exist in this form that I associate as "me."


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> its very hard to explain in such resume style so its normal you cannot understand as it would take much more time to explain.
> mind and the body are separated. they are related, but separated in that mind is not generated by the body. mind (consciousness) is not generated by the brain. of course, consciousness is influenced by the brain input and the 5 senses (eye, smell, touch, ect), but when you still the mind in concentration meditation, it becomes clear that you experience the calming of the mind, the mind calms itself and you begin to experiment a reality that has nothing to do with the body.
> 
> when you meditate, its clear that your mind is not the body and that the mind can be calmed.  theres no way you can walk if your mind doesnt say first: walk. mind over matter. the body is controlled by the mind.
> 
> if we decorticate what happens in life, it becomes evident that the mind can react to the body or can be trained to react differently to body input. for example, when the body feel sense contact he doesnt like: cold. it creates a feeling. your mind interpret the feeling  and decide I like it, or I dont like it, and then, the mind react and tells to the body move the body to escape that feeling. its always the same process. sense contact-feeling- reaction in the mind to that feeling  (positive or negative or neutral)- mind tells the body to move, or not. the body feels and the mind normally react almost automatically but with practice, you can learn to not react automatically and see that chain of cause and effect and stop being so concern with the body. you can train your mind just as much as you can train your body.
> 
> the body has a life of its own that the mind cannot control and vice versa. your body is bound to the law of nature: its bound to suffering, decay, death, old age.
> your mind however is not bound to the same laws. you can create mind suffering with negative thoughts, or happy state of mind with thinking about love, compassion. ect.
> 
> your mind cannot tells your body to stop bleeding. or your body cannot decide for your mind to relax and stop thinking. they are in separated realities so to speak and can be totally independant.
> I'm french so its hard to explain perfectly in english!



If you really believed this, why not blow your brains out and be at one with the world?  If your brain is unecessary to achieve consciousness, then why aren't dead people considered conscious?   Why isn't a rock conscious?  If everything is consciousness, then the meaning of  the word consciousness has no substance.  It could no longer be distinguished from unconsciousness or anything else for that matter.  Without an association to the form of life in which it emerges from, consciousness becomes an abstraction that you can project on anything.  It becomes an anthropomorphism of reality.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> i think nirvana is a feature of brain funtioning that results when the self is supressed.



It's more like you join with the whole so your self is dissolved, from my experience. You're not really willing to give up the self without getting something better in return (because you need it to survive). I think some who take a lot of psychedelics, etc. are seeking out that experience. 

But it's a bit hopeless to tell people to give up the self so they will get a reward. It would be more effective to teach them to seek the reward first. Although this is hard to achieve, but so is ego-dissolution.


----------



## turkalurk

Journyman16 said:


> Smelling pistakes can be annoying when there are many of them. Everyone typos once in a while and that's what spell check is for. Worse are grammar mistakes because they can alter the whole meaning of a phrase or sentence. But online, mentioning them tends to get wild accusations of 'grammar nazi' or worse. I am unsure why people think it is OK not to be able to properly use their language (ESL folk aside ) but it seems to bring virulent reactions. I'd put it down to bad teaching where students got chastised for incorrect spelling etc. but to be honest, schools just aren't that particular anymore and I doubt more than maybe 10% of teachers would pass an 8th grade (form 3) spelling test in my day.





 You engaged in a conversation that started from a spelling correction by implying the importance of grammar.  I, simply, found it ironic that you are so terrible with your grammar.  I was asking if you were aware of your poor grammar.  Apparently, you are not.  I will correct the first few paragraphs for you:



Journyman16 said:


> Clearly[,]reading is not your forté[,] either. :D
> 
> I did not claim it matter[ed], I pointed out no errors (except your 'punctuation' one later on, mostly for the irony)[missing a period] I corrected no mistakes, and it is more irony[ironic] you claim I distracted from the debate as [,]at least[,] I included on topic conversation in my post - unlike this one of yours. And[,] I diminished nobody's credibility.
> 
> And[,] I'm guessing you don't know enough grammar to follow through on your implied offer to correct my English... :D
> 
> Pretty much a fail all around... :D
> 
> The worst place I found for smelly people was Paris -[this should be a period or semicolon] I figure it must be why they got into so perfumes so heavily. And[,]Paris is not renowned for a vegetarian diet as a city -[this should be a colon] lotsa meat, lots of meat-based sauces[,] etc. But[,] it wasn't meat I smelt it was unwashed bodies, mostly with an attempt to cover it with rather sickly smells some might call fragrances.





By the way, when you corrected my spelling error, you did distract from the observation I made about your grammar by drawing attention to irrelevant attempts to diminish my credibility.




Journyman16 said:


> LOL - happy for you to post your corrections... :D of my 'puncuation'... :D (given you don't seem able to spell the word I am sincerely interested. :D)


----------



## turkalurk

I don't know about you guys, but typing on a phone is like texting a friend.  I will not pretend that my posts will ever be free of errors.


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> It's more like you join with the whole so your self is dissolved, from my experience. You're not really willing to give up the self without getting something better in return (because you need it to survive). I think some who take a lot of psychedelics, etc. are seeking out that experience.
> 
> But it's a bit hopeless to tell people to give up the self so they will get a reward. It would be more effective to teach them to seek the reward first. Although this is hard to achieve, but so is ego-dissolution.



If you read the study, damage to your right parietal lobe influences an experience of transcendence.   There is a god helmet that can use electromagnetic radiation to inhibit activity in the right parietal lobe, which is said to result in a spiritual(transcendent) experience.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-religion2.htm


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> yes, and imo, when people are so defensive and offensive, its when they are in the wrong or feel they may be wrong



By that logic, are you wrong?  You did claim to be worried about my lack of comprehension skills.


----------



## Erikmen

turkalurk said:


> You engaged in a conversation that started from a spelling correction by implying the importance of grammar.  I, simply, found it ironic that you are so terrible with your grammar.  I was asking if you were aware of your poor grammar.  Apparently, you are not.  I will correct the first few paragraphs for you.
> 
> By the way, when you corrected my spelling error, you did distract from the observation I made about your grammar by drawing attention to irrelevant attempts to diminish my credibility.



It's always like this.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> If you really believed this, why not blow your brains out and be at one with the world?  If your brain is unecessary to achieve consciousness, then why aren't dead people considered conscious?   Why isn't a rock conscious?  If everything is consciousness, then the meaning of  the word consciousness has no substance.  It could no longer be distinguished from unconsciousness or anything else for that matter.  Without an association to the form of life in which it emerges from, consciousness becomes an abstraction that you can project on anything.  It becomes an anthropomorphism of reality.


hi
we need this body to find what we are looking for. some look for sense contact and the body gives them that. 
if you meditate and discover a state of being that is much more appreciable then living in the sense contact, you would give up the importance of the sense contact and meditate all day long to attain that state of mind which is only available with concentration and that you prefer. 

 Its not the place to discuss this. dhammawheel is a great forum and any talk by ayya khema, ajahn brahm, ajahn chah would help you much more to understand then anything I could ever say! 



turkalurk said:


> If I start removing enough layers, I will cease to be recognizable.  If you take away my brain, and remove my face, then I am no longer recognizable as me.  With out my frame of reference to this particular form of life, I have no reason to associate my identity with this personality.  The word "I" will still refer to this particular body, whether I remember my ego are not, because the I refers to my form as well as my functions.  The word "I" will still function as a reference to this particular organic system.  I  am not consciousness, I have it.  If I lost my body, my consciousness would be come something its not now.  I will have evolved into a different form of consciousness, and without memories of this life, then the " me" that I become is irrelevant.  You are not just an observer, you are a property of the observed.  Without form, there is no function.    If I peel away the layers of my body, I no longer exist in this form that I associate as "me."


the you is temporary, its impermanent. you will lose this body, this body will die. 
you are not this body, nothing on the body ask for ownership. your mind and its delusion imagine that your toes are yours, and your nose, and your breath. ect. in reality, theres toes, theres breath, theres a nose. nothing is yours, its only a phenomena. even consciousness is impermanent. everything you experience is bound to the same law of raise-peak and decay. the body gives us a sense of solidity and thats why we take it for granted but your body will die, no matter what you do.

you dont own consciousness, consciousness is. your mind can be influenced by consciousness or can be train to not react and desire everything the body has to offer.

of course, its once you begin to meditate and experience a more pleasant state of being then anything the sense can provide, that you become to realize that the way we live: mostly by constantly try to have sense gratification is not fulfilling and concentration and mindfulness is much more.


turkalurk said:


> By that logic, are you wrong?  You did claim to be worried about my lack of comprehension skills.


id have to say that you seem much more comprehensive then two weeks ago!


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> hi
> we need this body to find what we are looking for. some look for sense contact and the body gives them that.
> if you meditate and discover a state of being that is much more appreciable then living in the sense contact, you would give up the importance of the sense contact and meditate all day long to attain that state of mind which is only available with concentration and that you prefer.
> 
> Its not the place to discuss this. dhammawheel is a great forum and any talk by ayya khema, ajahn brahm, ajahn chah would help you much more to understand then anything I could ever say!
> 
> 
> the you is temporary, its impermanent. you will lose this body, this body will die.
> you are not this body, nothing on the body ask for ownership. your mind and its delusion imagine that your toes are yours, and your nose, and your breath. ect. in reality, theres toes, theres breath, theres a nose. nothing is yours, its only a phenomena. even consciousness is impermanent. everything you experience is bound to the same law of raise-peak and decay. the body gives us a sense of solidity and thats why we take it for granted but your body will die, no matter what you do.
> 
> you dont own consciousness, consciousness is. your mind can be influenced by consciousness or can be train to not react and desire everything the body has to offer.
> 
> of course, its once you begin to meditate and experience a more pleasant state of being then anything the sense can provide, that you become to realize that the way we live: mostly by constantly try to have sense gratification is not fulfilling and concentration and mindfulness is much more.
> 
> id have to say that you seem much more comprehensive then two weeks ago!



yes, but what about the article that showed evidence that the transcendent experiences are based in brain functionality.  How is this not just another method of "pleasing the senses."  You feel a oneness, but you are no more one with than anyone else; you just feel as though you are, by redirecting the flow of processing information in ways that inhibit the "self sensation."   This results in a pleasing and gratifying experience which can lead to attachment just like any other pleasurable experience.  Why do you think there is such a corelation between addicts and new age spirituality that promotes these healthier ways of achieving a rewarding experiences with the added benefit of desirable consequences? Its a simple reward vs. consequences equation that favors its sustainability as a healthy way to indulge in a pleasurable experience without the costs of other easy ways that involved much more risk of harm.  

However, its not immune to harmful implications when taken to extremes or over-indulged in.  Just like anything else, moderation is key.  I mean, this path you speak of is called "the middle way" for a reason.


----------



## murphythecat

hi
I doubt the veracity of science and consciousness. all the experience of ego death or even people who are clinically dead and says that they were still conscious of everything and looked at doctors trying to resuscitate them. all the same things are describe: the light, the fact that they were looking at their body from a third perspective. I do not think that consciousness is only a brain function. 
about the attachment to pleasant feeling in meditation. Id have to say that its much better for someone to get attached to the pleasure of renunciation and concentration then be attached to sense gratification. when you are fully concentrated, you cannot hate, crave, desire, ressents.  meditation is puryfing. of course, meditation and concentration is also conditioned upon this body, but its much more safe to abide in a pleasure born of concentration rather then sensual pleasures. sense pleasure is like being in debt, because as soon as you fulfill a sense desire, theres another one coming right back at you. pleasure born of concentration is very fulfilling and allow one to gain insight into the mind.

when you mediate, your ego shrink very much. normally, in waking life, we believe that there is the observer (the ego, the self) and the observed (the think we observe). when you mediate, you concentrate on the observed so much that the observer is definitely not there anymore. all you experience is the observed, you are so into the observed and the present moment that it becomes evident that your consciousness is very malleable.
fascinating stuff imo 



turkalurk said:


> yes, but what about the article that showed evidence that the transcendent experiences are based in brain functionality.  How is this not just another method of "pleasing the senses."  You feel a oneness, but you are no more one with than anyone else; you just feel as though you are, by redirecting the flow of processing information in ways that inhibit the "self sensation."   This results in a pleasing and gratifying experience which can lead to attachment just like an other pleasurablr experience.  Why do you think there is such a corelation between addicts and new age spirituality that promotes these healthier ways of achieving a rewarding experiences with the added benefit of desirable consequences.  Its a simple reward vs. consequences equation that favors its sustainability as a healthy way to indulge in a pleasurable experience without the costs of other easy ways that involved much more risk of harm.
> 
> However, its not immune to harmful implications when taken to extremes or over-indulged in.  Just like anything else, moderation is key.  I mean, this path you speak of is called "the middle way" for reason.


http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=21221
heres a thread about mind vs brain. could be very interesting for you


----------



## Ninae

Nostradamus  predicted advances in the science of telepathy will make it possible for people to talk with their pets and farm animals.

He wrote "This will lead to an upsurge in vegetarianism since the hog will become a brother to man.”


----------



## socko

Ninae said:


> Nostradamus  predicted advances in the science of telepathy will make it possible for people to talk with their pets and farm animals.
> 
> He wrote "This will lead to an upsurge in vegetarianism since the hog will become a brother to man.”


By coincidence, having telepathic communications with my next-door neighbor's dog Sam is one of the things that influenced my decision to become vegetarian.


----------



## Ninae

Whar do you mean by telepathic communications?


----------



## socko

Ninae said:


> Whar do you mean by telepathic communications?


 I assume the same thing you meant -  transfer of information by no known physical means or sensory channels.
Edit: oh dear, what did you think i meant?


----------



## Ninae

I just meant what you talked about. I'm not that good at reading thoughts but I read feelings and energy very well. My cat is very expressive so I can see most of what he feels.


----------



## socko

Ninae said:


> I just meant what you talked about. I'm not that good at reading thoughts but I read feelings and energy very well. My cat is very expressive so I can see most of what he feels.


Receiving/sending a complete thought 'bindle.' I'm making up that word because I don't know any words to describe the process. A bindle is like a bundle of thoughts and images and emotions all rolled up into a packet that is experienced by the receiver instantly like a flash of déjà vu. It is non-verbal because animals don't have language. Unlike a  typical déjà vu, the bindle has content. It is similar to having had a conversation with someone. It expresses the idea of the sender.


----------



## Ninae

I've experienced this a lot, but not while talking with animals. Though it can be as much as a page of 5 paragraphs in one second. But what did he say?


----------



## socko

That is how I experience it for animals whether or not they are physically present. It is, of course, non-verbal since animals don't have language, but it can be surprisingly sophisticated.
This isn't the place to talk about it in detail.  Send me a pm or something and i'll tell you more details


----------



## swilow

I guess, upon reflection, that this actually _is_ the thread to discuss telepathic communication with animals.

But- it makes the "vegetarian/vegan" side look like lunatics. :D

You are aware that David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) also communicated with his neighbours dog? I would be very sceptical regarding the content of what it says. How can you know for sure that telepathy isn't just your own brain thinking to itself?


----------



## socko

My neighbor's dog's name wasn't really Sam.  I was trying to be funny, and since I always change names on here, including the names of neighbor's pets for privacy purposes, I used that name on purpose. I knew the dog because he lived in the same apartment house, and I would take care of him and walk him when the neighbor was out of town.
I think animal telepathy is an acceptable topic, especially in a forum where people post about reincarnation and communication with their guardian angels. The experiences that I call 'telepathy' with the dog and many other animals and humans are subjective, of course, but that really is how I perceive it. Whether or not it's a flight of fancy is for you to decide, but I use the name Sam to remind you not to take it too seriously. I hope I haven't sabotaged the vegan/vegetarian side.


----------



## Journyman16

turkalurk said:


> You engaged in a conversation that started from a spelling correction by implying the importance of grammar.  I, simply, found it ironic that you are so terrible with your grammar.  I was asking if you were aware of your poor grammar.  Apparently, you are not.


Yeah... but no. Your corrections leave much to be desired and show more of a wish to post something than actual grammar corrections. 

 I will correct the first few paragraphs for you:


> Clearly[,]reading is not your forté[,] either. _Both added commas are irrelevant and the sentence is correct as originally written._
> 
> I did not claim it matter[ed], _(yep, correct on this except it was meant to be an 's' not an 'ed' - as I clearly stated, people make typos and this is one that spell check would not highlight.)_ I pointed out no errors (except your 'punctuation' one later on, mostly for the irony)[missing a period] _nope, doesn't need a period inside the parentheses_ I corrected no mistakes, and it is more irony[ironic] _nope again, irony is exactly correct - as in it is another instance of irony not an escalated form of the previous one_ you claim I distracted from the debate as [,]at least[,] _nope again, there IS a comma missing but correct grammar would have it after the word 'debate,' which I guess you missed :D_ I included on topic conversation in my post - unlike this one of yours. And[,] I diminished nobody's credibility.
> 
> 
> And[,] I'm guessing you don't know enough grammar to follow through on your implied offer to correct my English...  _this and the previous one are incorrect - in both cases 'and' is a part of a complete sentence and doesn't need a comma at all. Same thing for the one you put below before Paris. I think maybe you are using commas incorrectly and trying to use them as voice cues?_
> 
> The worst place I found for smelly people was Paris -[this should be a period or semicolon]_Actually no it shouldn't. It is a dash, (as is the following one) something that is hard to do with a keyboard, which is why it has spaces - which it shouldn't - but neither does a hyphen so the spaces serve notice this is not a hyphen. :D_  I figure it must be why they got into so perfumes so heavily. And[,]Paris is not renowned for a vegetarian diet as a city -[this should be a colon] see previous comment lotsa meat, lots of meat-based sauces[,] etc. But[,] _nope, another comma used unnecessarily. However there could have been one used after 'smelt' but you missed that. :D_ it wasn't meat I smelt it was unwashed bodies, mostly with an attempt to cover it with rather sickly smells some might call fragrances.


So, all in all, pretty much a flunk. But at least you tried and you get kudos for that. Mostly in the past, such 'challenges' have simply drawn more abuse so that's a well-done, son... :D


turkalurk said:


> By the way, when you corrected my spelling error, you did distract from the observation I made about your grammar by drawing attention to irrelevant attempts to diminish my credibility.


_That reasoning doesn't make sense. First, it isn't irrelevant. You challenged my punctuation and twice misspelt the word. It is irony, not diminishment... unless of course that is how YOU choose to let it affect you. And that's not my problem, nor is it my 'distraction.' Nor, for that matter, did I correct it in that post, I simply highlighted it to point out the irony. _:D


----------



## Journyman16

turkalurk said:


> I don't know about you guys, but typing on a phone is like texting a friend.  I will not pretend that my posts will ever be free of errors.


And nobody ever suggested they should be. I make no such claims either, but spell check is pretty simple to use, so at least the more obvious ones are worth fixing.

On the other hand, grammar is so difficult that even Microsoft can't get it right and they have trying for 20 years. :D

Now can we return to the scheduled programming? :D


----------



## Journyman16

socko said:


> My neighbor's dog's name wasn't really Sam.  I was trying to be funny, and since I always change names on here, including the names of neighbor's pets for privacy purposes, I used that name on purpose. I knew the dog because he lived in the same apartment house, and I would take care of him and walk him when the neighbor was out of town.
> I think animal telepathy is an acceptable topic, especially in a forum where people post about reincarnation and communication with their guardian angels. The experiences that I call 'telepathy' with the dog and many other animals and humans are subjective, of course, but that really is how I perceive it. Whether or not it's a flight of fancy is for you to decide, but I use the name Sam to remind you not to take it too seriously. I hope I haven't sabotaged the vegan/vegetarian side.


I doubt the 'lunatic fringe' can be defined by their choices in food types. :D 

I don't know about actual telepathy with them but there are many instances of (in particular) dogs knowing things most people would not credit. And there are certainly strong bonds between dog and master, so that would seem to provide the first level of connection needed for deeper communication.


----------



## What 23

And that bond goes down to their very being. They developed to survive as our companions, so they would definitely be good at picking up on us. Dogs at least, it is in their nature to be of our nature...


----------



## Erikmen

Agree with you totally!
It's really about dogs and telepathic communication with them


----------



## One Thousand Words

Don't forget about eating vomit and licking their own genitalia.


----------



## swilow

Socko said:
			
		

> I hope I haven't sabotaged the vegan/vegetarian side.



Hey man, no  I got the feeling you were joking and tried to kind if joke back but my brain evidently loaded up the wrong progranm.  

I do, however, sometimes think that such a diet can entice people with other, less-then-conventional ideologies and this, in turn, can lead the more sceptical or conservative to associate vege/vegan (V/V) with these other idea's and thus dismiss it as one and the same.. It's a valid dietary choice that becomes weird when start people referring to the 'vibrational energy' of meat or somesuch. I think that phenomenon has occurred throughout this thread to an extent. Or the more fundamentalist v/v are distracting in their black-and-white fervour and their hardline is repelling, inducing more opposition despite their own attempts to convince. 

I do note that we have had hardly any current meat-eaters in this thread actually applauding or admiring the choice (though there have been some). More have acted like they are actually opposed to it and consider it to be negative and reflect negatively on the subscriber... And this doesn't appear to be a reaction based on something.



Journyman16 said:


> I don't know about actual telepathy with them but there are many instances of (in particular) dogs knowing things most people would not credit. And there are certainly strong bonds between dog and master, so that would seem to provide the first level of connection needed for deeper communication.



Dogs in particular seem to be able to pick up on very subtle clues from humans which is suggestive of a greater intelligence then what we may assume. I also wonder if perhaps dogs communicate with   other dogs in a similarly subtle manner. It makes me wonder if we are undervaluing the intelligence of dogs and, by extension, other animals. If they are as adept at communication as some appear, it makes me feel more convinced that I wish to be vegan.


----------



## Journyman16

Willow said:
			
		

> If they are as adept at communication as some appear, it makes me feel more convinced that I wish to be vegan.


And yet dogs are carnivores... :D 

I don't think I am in the 'opposed' camp, but I probably like both my seafood and steaks too much to become a vegetarian. I have had periods however, where I have fasted for days at a time and also gone 'juicer' for health reasons. And it takes time after such times to adjust back to a meat-rich diet. If one jumps straight back to a 'normal' diet one can get quite severe reactions.

I'm not quite sure why that is. There appears to be a change in how the stomach functions when no meat is consumed for some time and with fasting, there is a need to ease back into consuming any solid foods - even too much juice can cause unwelcome effects.


----------



## swilow

Dogs are probably anti-vegetarian too TBPH.


----------



## Journyman16

Nah... they like almost everyone, but sane dogs can give good advice on who to trust as well... :D


----------



## swilow

^My dearly departed Rottweiler friend, Henry, was something of a mixed bag when it came to character judging. One of my friends, who was essentially a freeloading dick, Henry utterly loathed and would growl at and try and stare down. Because of his size I had to be quite firm with him, but he never went to far. However, he treated one of my closest friends in the same way, and this friend is totally chilled out, kind, thoughtful and friendly. I don't know why, but Henry hated him...

Apart from those guys, Henry basically loved the entire world, though a lot of it made him nervous. He would always get over his nervousness with a little bit of food of course . The poor fellow, I still miss him so much.

I think dogs are both intelligent and totally dumb at the same time :D  They are very like humans in that sense


----------



## socko

Dogs definitely pick up on things we can't perceive. Some dogs can detect cancer in humans. They can also predict seizures. They can pick up things about people's character like your Henry could. I'm not sure why they like some people and hate others, to the point of hating the nice guy and liking the dick. Dogs and cats seem to love me for some reason. I'm the kind of guy that you might see several strange dogs run up to and greet me at the park.


----------



## Ninae

If dogs could perceive you were vegetarian in any way, with the way they are I'm sure they would love you even more. Dogs never react negatively to humans if there is any way to react positively.


----------



## Erikmen

socko said:


> Dogs definitely pick up on things we can't perceive. Some dogs can detect cancer in humans. They can also predict seizures. They can pick up things about people's character like your Henry could. I'm not sure why they like some people and hate others, to the point of hating the nice guy and liking the dick. Dogs and cats seem to love me for some reason. I'm the kind of guy that you might see several strange dogs run up to and greet me at the park.



I have had dogs during all my life and one thing I know about them is their capacity to read you well and smell feelings as it seems to be one of their best characteristics.
 I believe they see in you a friendly person who like animals and have no intentions to hurt them, on the opposite.

Dogs are nice to people like you, they want to play and they predict you mean no harm. Probably kids may sense a little of that too.


----------



## Journyman16

Cool... so back to the subject.

The eye-opener for me about veggie life style was the Hare Krishna cafe that was in Melbourne. (still there AFAIK) First unusual thing was you didn't HAVE to pay - they simply asked you to give what you thought it was worth and you could afford.

The meals provided were varied, but some were stunning in flavour and appearance. Some were a bit bleh to western tastes and one or two were simply not food. (IMO :D)

But for a young carnie from the country it was a genuine surprise that non-meat food could be so good.


----------



## turkalurk

I know my motivations, and I feel no embarassment.  I am having good fun and enjoy its entertainment value while spreading ego awareness to my fellow man.  Regardless of what he says, I believe my point has been made.  His brain could remember this experience and use it to better gauge the possible risks. 

I will be moving on because he cares more than I do about proving how great he is.  I am unwilling to invest newr as much time arguing where commas should go.  I didn't expect that I needed to.  I thought he knew his grammar wasn't perfect.   I let him sucker me into wasting more time than I bargained for.  Hopefully, my brain will remember this, and I will just laugh it off when someone complains of something they themselves aren't the greatest at.


----------



## Erikmen

Point taken. In regards to the grammar, like I said different rules apply when you are in the Internet.
I find it even more challenging to write in others languages. 
One most know it's abbreviations, learn without the proper vowels and accents, etc.


----------



## swilow

Journyman16 said:


> Cool... so back to the subject.
> 
> The eye-opener for me about veggie life style was the Hare Krishna cafe that was in Melbourne. (still there AFAIK) First unusual thing was you didn't HAVE to pay - they simply asked you to give what you thought it was worth and you could afford.
> 
> The meals provided were varied, but some were stunning in flavour and appearance. Some were a bit bleh to western tastes and one or two were simply not food. (IMO :D)
> 
> But for a young carnie from the country it was a genuine surprise that non-meat food could be so good.



How about Lentil as Anything? Similar concept, vegie food and pay as you feel. I've been there a few times and, to avoid being seen as a cheapskate, I usually pay probably way more then the food is worth. I think most people do, to avoid the same thing I wished to. They'd make a killing I think (wrong term I guess).

There's some really awesome vegetarian and vegan food out there if you look  I quite enjoy the 'mock-x' stuff (mock fish, mock duck, etc.) Some of it is awful, but through trial and error I have found some really good products. The product called 'Cheatin' is some very tasty mock-ham. I recommend it. 

That said, I don't eat that much pretend meat products. I'm not a fan of hugely processed food, and that's exactly what this stuff is...


----------



## ForEverAfter

Eating fake meat when you go vegan/vegetarian is like puffing on e-cigarettes after you quit smoking or drinking non-alcoholic beer/wine after you quit drinking... or injecting saline after you quit slamming meth...




(Edit: ^it looks like the top one is licking the bottom one's head.)


----------



## What 23




----------



## Ninae

Most of that stuff is pretty bland, but there are many, especially men, who hate to cook and will only heat, who will mostly subside themselves on that stuff when they stop eating meat. Not all of it is that horrible, but some is. Most of that soya stuff is bad, but you can always eat soya hot dogs and they don't taste much different to normal hot dogs (don't taste much anyway), but if you eat too much you tend to want to throw up, and I mean purge all of it. So it's probably not that healthy.


----------



## What 23

It's all the salt and etc in processing, probably. And at least in the U.S. I think most soy is probably genetically modified. I know Europe doesn't have it as bad as we do and ban much of what is allowed here, so I don't know. What that stuff does when eaten constantly in large amounts has been argued. Some is undeniable that it effects/potentially effects the one eating it. That and other chemicals. Always get organic at least unless you know how it is grown is preferred.

But without seeing the ingredients it would be tough knowing. Even if I knew them. No idea. Overeating is never really good. I notice I feel better if I eat smaller portions, in general. Large portions make me want to pass out.

Also certain plants have inhibitors of digestion...

https://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm


> The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients." First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.


----------



## Ninae

I can't handle much processed food. Last week I didn't feel like cooking so I tried making a bag of tomato pasta. And apart from the pasta it was mostly synthetic so it didn't go down too well. But soy is supposed to be particularly unhealthy and is probably worse than most things.


----------



## murphythecat

soy milk and tofu shouldnt be eaten everyday
but in moderation. soy beans are great and I use that quite often


----------



## ForEverAfter

Can I just confirm, while I have the opportunity, that miso soup is okay to consume on a daily basis?
I've always assumed that it's okay but I've never looked into it... does anyone know?


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> Most of that stuff is pretty bland, but there are many, especially men, who hate to cook and will only heat, who will mostly subside themselves on that stuff when they stop eating meat. Not all of it is that horrible, but some is. Most of that soya stuff is bad, but you can always eat soya hot dogs and they don't taste much different to normal hot dogs (don't taste much anyway), but if you eat too much you tend to want to throw up, and I mean purge all of it. So it's probably not that healthy.



Yeah, there are some awful faux-meats out there but there are also good. Some of the Linda McCartney stuff is decent. Vegetarian sausages that don't take 12 hours to digest!


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Some of the Linda McCartney stuff is decent.



I wonder if anybody has ever used that sentence to describe her music?



> there are many, especially men, who hate to cook



I encounter more women, in my circles, who hate to cook...


----------



## Ninae

Probably the women in your circles.


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> Can I just confirm, while I have the opportunity, that miso soup is okay to consume on a daily basis?
> I've always assumed that it's okay but I've never looked into it... does anyone know?



Honestly, the supposed harms of soy are poorly understood and established enough that we probably don't know.  However, the fermentation process and small serving size might eliminate whatever given dangerous compound (eg, enzymes that inhibit tyrosine's breakdown, estrogenic isoflavones, etc.).

ebola


----------



## Abject

There's nothing unclear about phytoestrogens, if you eat a lot of soy you're going to have higher estrogen plasma levels
(un)fortunately there's no testosterone counterpart, and dietary cholesterol has 0 effect on most.


----------



## ebola?

abject said:
			
		

> There's nothing unclear about phytoestrogens, if you eat a lot of soy you're going to have higher estrogen plasma levels



This is incorrect.  The phytoestrogens in soy function largely as weak partial agonists at estrogen receptors, entailing a slight (but largely inconsequential) increase in estrogenic function in males, and a slight (but largely inconsequential) decrease in estrogenic function in females.  I mean, I wouldn't supplement with extracted isoflavones, but I wouldn't worry about soy foods.

ebola


----------



## Abject

What do you mean phytoestrogens have a slight inconsequential increase? How much?
If strong changes occurred with normal intakes Japan would be all sorts of fucked up, but there studies showing clear estrogen changes (of drastic measures) through prolonged excessive intake of soy products (among other related foods)
Luckily the changes are reversible, once u start eating like a sensible person (read: moderation) your natural homeostasis returns


----------



## ebola?

> What do you mean phytoestrogens have a slight inconsequential increase? How much?



It's rather difficult to give a straightforward measure, as these phytoestrogens don't increase the activity of estrogen itself but rather act as estrogen-mimics.



> there studies showing clear estrogen changes (of drastic measures) through prolonged excessive intake of soy products (among other related foods)



I could be wrong; I'd be interested in seeing these.

ebola


----------



## Abject

I cbf looking atm so u can have a case study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558591

and there's even another without me having to look
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476


----------



## ForEverAfter

So, I found some bacon in the freezer.
It belonged to my girlfriend, back when she was still eating meat on a regular basis.
Anyway, it was approaching use-by... so I ate it...

I'm just wondering if all vegetarians/vegans do this... and, if not, why not?
Is it better / worse to throw away the meat?

What is the ethical issue, if any, when it will otherwise go to waste?
And, by extension, does the same apply to an animal that died of natural causes?
If you have a pet sheep, do you make mutton stew when it dies or do you bury it.
In which case, should I have buried the bacon?

It's not something I'm losing sleep over.
I just haven't quite worked it out, yet.
And, I thought it might generate some discussion.


----------



## socko

ForEverAfter said:


> So, I found some bacon in the freezer.
> It belonged to my girlfriend, back when she was still eating meat on a regular basis.
> Anyway, it was approaching use-by... so I ate it...
> 
> I'm just wondering if all vegetarians/vegans do this... and, if not, why not?
> Is it better / worse to throw away the meat?
> 
> What is the ethical issue, if any, when it will otherwise go to waste?
> And, by extension, does the same apply to an animal that died of natural causes?
> If you have a pet sheep, do you make mutton stew when it dies or do you bury it.
> In which case, should I have buried the bacon?
> 
> It's not something I'm losing sleep over.
> I just haven't quite worked it out, yet.
> And, I thought it might generate some discussion.


I know rednecks just love pork, and they're always giving me frozen cuts of pork. No matter how much I tell them I don't eat it and keep refusing, they keep on giving it and even sending it in the mail. The one time I tried to eat it a few years ago, I had heartburn for a week. Pork is so disgusting to me that I leave it in the bushes for stray dogs to eat.


----------



## murphythecat

if meat is offered to me, ill eat it. especially if it would go to waste, it would be a total lost to throw it away, might as well eat it.





ForEverAfter said:


> So, I found some bacon in the freezer.
> It belonged to my girlfriend, back when she was still eating meat on a regular basis.
> Anyway, it was approaching use-by... so I ate it...
> 
> I'm just wondering if all vegetarians/vegans do this... and, if not, why not?
> Is it better / worse to throw away the meat?
> 
> What is the ethical issue, if any, when it will otherwise go to waste?
> And, by extension, does the same apply to an animal that died of natural causes?
> If you have a pet sheep, do you make mutton stew when it dies or do you bury it.
> In which case, should I have buried the bacon?
> 
> It's not something I'm losing sleep over.
> I just haven't quite worked it out, yet.
> And, I thought it might generate some discussion.


the problem for me is only when we buy meat, as it encourage the industry. once its bought, theres nothing else to do and the harm, imo, is already done. however, if you eat it and get attached to its taste, maybe its tempting to go buy more. but if you can resist, I dont see harm in eating meat when its been offered, but even then, its a bit controversial.


----------



## turkalurk

what happened to eating meat was inherently wrong?


----------



## ebola?

That was an argument you put forth to characterize your opposition, not a position that others advanced widely in this thread (with stress on the importance of what "inherent" means here though).  Eg, I don't think that many here would condemn those who depend crucially on hunted animals for nutrition without readily available alternatives.

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

ive always said its encouraging the industry and buying meat that is wrong because it promotes killing. im against killing and promoting killing.
once its bought and offered, the wrong is already done.





turkalurk said:


> what happened to eating meat was inherently wrong?


----------



## murphythecat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798#t=40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZmV_3Lm_A


----------



## Abject

Here in Australia we have *wonderful kangaroo meat.* Extremely lean, a source of CLA/transfat and omega 3s, full of minerals like zinc and iron and plenty of B group vitamins, and it's all wild hunted!
No farming of 'roos here, no hormones or antibiotics, only males are culled in the wild with a swift shot to the head, and if we didn't keep the numbers down it would result in environmental damage.
It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources around!

There's also venison and rabbits, both of which are hunted wildly and killed with a single shot to the head.
I find this to be much more ethical than farming.


----------



## ebola?

Yeah, it pretty much tastes like comparatively lean beef or bison.

ebola


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm just wondering if all vegetarians/vegans do this... and, if not, why not?
> Is it better / worse to throw away the meat?
> 
> What is the ethical issue, if any, when it will otherwise go to waste?
> And, by extension, does the same apply to an animal that died of natural causes?
> If you have a pet sheep, do you make mutton stew when it dies or do you bury it.
> In which case, should I have buried the bacon?
> 
> It's not something I'm losing sleep over.
> I just haven't quite worked it out, yet.
> And, I thought it might generate some discussion.




Ah, quite the conundrum 

Not really, I think you followed the right path. Better to consume and utilise some of the value of the animal then not. However, you _could_ have the buried the meat and surely some sort of ground burrowing carrion insect would have found it. Or just letting it decompose would have provided sustenance to a thriving galaxy of bacteria and microorganisms.  But, the most direct way that YOU could have utilised that resource is what you did IMO. What you excrete of it will also go to use, and all excretements that follow there-on. I'm thinking of the way that not much (that is food) could be thought of as going to waste (unless you sent it to the moon). One could take and follow this thought _ad infinitum_...If the universe works in the way we think, then nothing really ever goes to waste. I suppose you could say that some things get misappropriated.



turkalurk said:


> what happened to eating meat was inherently wrong?



It seemed to be left by the wayside when you stopped mentioning it . Its probably good that Murphy is exhibiting some pragmatism here, but this is a good example of a real-world scenario and an example of moral absolutism being inflexible and incompatible with the vicissitude's of life. I'm pretty sure I've heard the Dalai Lama mentioning that he consumes animal if a host offers it, to avoid being impolite and wasteful. I can respect that line of thinking. I guess, for a Buddhist, the wrong doing is largely accrued by the purchaser of the product...? Whether that statement is true or not, I think its a bit disingenuous and cunning. I'm not sure how flexible the operation of karma is meant to be though...



Abject said:


> Here in Australia we have *wonderful kangaroo meat.* Extremely lean, a source of CLA/transfat and omega 3s, full of minerals like zinc and iron and plenty of B group vitamins, and it's all wild hunted!
> No farming of 'roos here, no hormones or antibiotics, only males are culled in the wild with a swift shot to the head, and if we didn't keep the numbers down it would result in environmental damage.
> It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources around!



I didn't know you were Aussie. Hi, I am too... 

I have consumed kangaroo in the past; I didn't like it all that much except when eaten at a restaurant. My attempts to cook it were futile... My brother, who lives more to the north, has been known to eat roadkill including kangaroos. That is dedication I'm not sure I can muster....

But it brings up foreverafter's point, about (I guess) ethical utilisation of resources. I hope I've made my point, that I am not against ethical use of animals, but in modern farming that appears pretty sparse and has lead me to make the only choice I think I can. I think that consuming an animal, died after being randomly struck by a car, almost honours the death of the creature. I suppose I support that.


----------



## turkalurk

yeah, that makes sense.  Absolutism when its convenient.  Argue a person to death and then change your position.


----------



## turkalurk

turkalurk said:


> One more thing, for most people, the food is dead when it gets to their plate.  Few people actually kill their food.





murphythecat said:


> how's that even a argument?



I guess its a better argument than you thought eh?  It worked for you when you wanted to eat meat.  So many things I can quote where you implicitly claim that eating meat is always wrong.   I am glad to see you have changed your mind.


----------



## murphythecat

my mind hasnt change about it, it is my position from day one of this thread and ive been following that for years now. 
 Ive said so many time in this thread that its buying meat that encourage and continue the massacre and that this is what im against. once its bought, theres nothing else to do. the harm has been done because the killing will continue. if we were to all stop buying meat, the industry of cruelty would end. the only solution is to stop buying meat.





turkalurk said:


> I guess its a better argument than you thought eh?  It worked for you when you wanted to eat meat.  So many things I can quote where you implicitly claim that eating meat is always wrong.   I am glad to see you have changed your mind.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> the only solution is to stop buying meat.



There are ways to purchase meat without contributing to the suffering of animals.
Wild over-populated game, like kangaroo, as someone else mentioned.
And molluscs, since they don't have brains...



> yeah, that makes sense. Absolutism when its convenient. Argue a person to death and then change your position.



I'm not sure who that was directed towards, turk, but the vast majority of vegans / vegetarians in this thread haven't been speaking in absolutes. We've all clarified, repeatedly, that we are against the suffering caused by meat industries on farmed animals... There have been some absolute statements, here and there, like the one I quoted - above - from Murphy... But, you that doesn't justify lumping your entire opposition together into one convenient mass target...


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> There are ways to purchase meat without contributing to the suffering of animals.
> Wild over-populated game, like kangaroo, as someone else mentioned.
> And molluscs, since they don't have brains...


yeah,  we talked about this like 2 months ago about different scenario where killing would be acceptable to save species, or save a eco system ect.


----------



## para-thesis

You're a total crackpot. If an alien race had the ability to feed on us, well that would be survival of the fittest now wouldn't it? But please, an advanced alien race would travel trillions of miles to eat another less advanced race? That's sounds, smells, etc like false-equivalency bullshit.


----------



## para-thesis

ForEverAfter said:


> Or, better yet, just eat a balanced diet with lots of iron-rich food.
> Vegans have to take (some) supplements, but vegetarians don't.



Love this, so if you're basically required to supplement your diet with pills to stay healthy, doesnt that say something about the diet itself. I take supplements,  but only to SUPPLEMENT, not as a requirement to stay baseline healthy. Being an omnivore (which i'm sorry to inform you) we are, is the balanced diet for the human animal.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> You're a total crackpot.



Who are you talking to?

...

People on the omnivore side of this argument keep returning to of naturalism, yet you're all typing on computers...
Aren't condoms unnatural? Should we do without them, too? ... What about medicine?
Aren't there other factors - aside from who natural something is - to consider?

And, has anybody on this thread actually suggested that being a vegan is "more natural" than eating meat?
We're not discussing what is natural; we're discussing what is ethical.


----------



## para-thesis

Ninae said:


> I won't deny any predatory qualities. I'm pretty fierce on the intellectual level, I have the killer-instinct. The thing is it can be channeled in different ways.



There is so much self-aggrandizement in that statement its ridiculous.... you may think its possible for the human race to seperate itself from nature, but how exactly is that even possible? We live within the same ecosystem as everything else. Basically, although he couldn't quite articulate it correctly, what23 was right. You make these moral decisions based off of the luxury of being insulated from life-or-death survival. You cant tell me your philosophy holds any water as optimal if, pushed by the necessity, you were forced to eat meat. Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. Because you are an omnivore, and you cant just choose to deny a million years of human evolution because you feel nicer about it that way.


----------



## para-thesis

...

People on the omnivore side of this argument keep returning to of naturalism, yet you're all typing on computers...
Aren't condoms unnatural? Should we do without them, too? ... What about medicine?
Aren't there other factors - aside from who natural something is - to consider?

And, has anybody on this thread actually suggested that being a vegan is "more natural" than eating meat?
We're not discussing what is natural; we're discussing what is ethical.[/QUOTE]

Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal. But you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?


----------



## socko

para-thesis said:


> T.... Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. ....


What I want to know is, if we were all stuck in a place with no edible flora or fauna, which of us would resort to cannibalisme in order to survive?


----------



## ForEverAfter

> Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal.



No, but it has to do with the dietary choices of human beings.
Again, that's what this thread is about.



> you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?



I'm not sure I understand the question... I'm not disregarding anything...
Although it is more natural for humans to eat meat, it is also more natural for humans not to use contraception.



> if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat.
> 
> 
> 
> if we were all stuck in a place with no edible flora or fauna, which of us would resort to cannibalism
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## para-thesis

ForEverAfter said:


> No, but it has to do with the dietary choices of human beings.
> Again, that's what this thread is about.
> 
> Then the thread is based on a falsehood, because seperating yourself from nature by inserting your fabricated code of ethics into nature which has no regard for your moral code is sort of useless. factory farming is horrible, I havent seen anyone advocate for it, but considering meat consumption to be the infringement of an animals' rights? Thats a different matter altogether that has more to do with your opinion and preferences,  not the reality of nature. In the end, survival trumps regard for feelings, and ethical practice has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm not disregarding anything...
> Although it is more natural for humans to eat meat, it is also more natural for humans not to use contraception.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.



who said that I supported contraception?  And if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?


----------



## murphythecat

but, are you in that position where you are starving to death and need to kill and eat another human? no, so why bring those situation when we are not in this situation and you go to a supermarket and decide to buy meat rather then cereals, beans, lentils, nuts, eggs, ect. 

and, your diet and the choice you make to eat meat is also purely intellectual and you are influenced by the culture where you live. there are close to a billion humans in india that are vegetarian.





para-thesis said:


> who said that I supported contraception?  And if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?


----------



## para-thesis

murphythecat said:


> but, are you in that position where you are starving to death and need to kill and eat another human? no, so why bring those situation when we are not in this situation and you go to a supermarket and decide to buy meat rather then cereals, beans, lentils, nuts, eggs, ect.
> 
> and, your diet and the choice you make to eat meat is also purely intellectual and you are influenced by the culture where you live. there are close to a billion humans in india that are vegetarian.



I actually think its the other way around. They're influenced by the culture in which they live, and the religion that country practices. Before their religion, and resulting cultural beliefs, there was just human nature and biological necessity. And out of that biological harmony with nature grew a being with teeth capable of ripping meat, and a digestive system well-suited to assimilating nutrients gained from meat. you can sit there from the safety of your climate controlled apartment and talk about your high-handed morals, and your advanced capacity for empathy because you are so certain of cosmic karma, but what you cant deny, no matter how much you'd like to, is the being nature shaped you to be.


----------



## socko

para-thesis said:


> I actually think its the other way around. They're influenced by the culture in which they live, and the religion that country practices. Before their religion, and resulting cultural beliefs, there was just human nature and biological necessity. And out of that biological harmony with nature grew a being with teeth capable of ripping meat, and a digestive system well-suited to assimilating nutrients gained from meat. you can sit there from the safety of your climate controlled apartment and talk about your high-handed morals, and your advanced capacity for empathy because you are so certain of cosmic karma, but what you cant deny, no matter how much you'd like to, is the being nature shaped you to be.


During famines and other cases of starvation like people lost at sea or expeditions into remote areas, people's true nature comes out. There are real life historical examples of this. One famous one was in the United States in the 19th century. There was an expedition crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains that got snowed in at Donner Pass. They were hopelessly stuck the whole winter, but they didn't have enough food, and weren't skilled in outdoor survival. In the same group, some people harvested the meat of other humans, but some did not. Some people probably know themselves well enough to get an idea of what they will do if they are ever in a famine. I'd imagine that any anorexic person or a very disciplined vegan or vegetarian would be less likely to eat other people than an average omnivore.


----------



## para-thesis

socko said:


> During famines and other cases of starvation like people lost at sea or expeditions into remote areas, people's true nature comes out. There are real life historical examples of this. One famous one was in the United States in the 19th century. There was an expedition crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains that got snowed in at Donner Pass. They were hopelessly stuck the whole winter, but they didn't have enough food, and weren't skilled in outdoor survival. In the same group, some people harvested the meat of other humans, but some did not. Some people probably know themselves well enough to get an idea of what they will do if they are ever in a famine. I'd imagine that any anorexic person or a very disciplined vegan or vegetarian would be less likely to eat other people than an average omnivore.



And they would deny their own nature based upon an unnecessary moralistic attitude to the bitter end. And like any organism that wont or cant do what it takes to survive, they wouldn't, the end.


----------



## socko

I guess so. People are willing to die for their beliefs.


----------



## para-thesis

socko said:


> I guess so. People are willing to die for their beliefs.



I know they would, and I think thats something that people need to take a look at. because when you value something that is not verifyably, and empirically the truth, how valuable is it really? I've seen quite a lot of people on here talking about the vibrations of crystals, karma, telepathy with animals, etc. and I have to say, backing up your claims with feelings and personal beliefs has never served an argument well, much less should be a philosophy anyone should live by.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> who said that I supported contraception?



If you don't support contraception, you're an idiot.
It's your decision whether or not you use contraception.
But, not supporting it is downright stupid.

And it doesn't matter, either way, because you're using a computer.
You can't deny that, for convenience sake...



> if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?



I'd eat you first.
Right now though, since I don't need to eat humans or animals (that have been mistreated) I chose not to.
There is no necessity to consume meat, currently, so your point is moot.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> If you don't support contraception, you're an idiot.
> It's your decision whether or not you use contraception.
> But, not supporting it is downright stupid.
> 
> And it doesn't matter, either way, because you're using a computer.
> You can't deny that, for convenience sake...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd eat you first.
> Right now though, since I don't need to eat humans or animals (that have been mistreated) I chose not to.
> There is no necessity to consume meat, currently, so your point is moot.



haven't seen many vegan tough guys.  Herbivores are usually the prey.  Just sayin...


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> yeah, that makes sense.  Absolutism when its convenient.  Argue a person to death and then change your position.



I'm going to have to assume that this post was directed at me. Before you say another thing, please find the posts where I have taken an absolute stance. 

You are actually inventing things now or mixing people up.

At least when I'm fucked I try and say nice things ffs  :D 



para-thesis said:


> There is so much self-aggrandizement in that statement its ridiculous.... you may think its possible for the human race to seperate itself from nature, but how exactly is that even possible? We live within the same ecosystem as everything else. Basically, although he couldn't quite articulate it correctly, what23 was right. You make these moral decisions based off of the luxury of being insulated from life-or-death survival. You cant tell me your philosophy holds any water as optimal if, pushed by the necessity, you were forced to eat meat. Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. Because you are an omnivore, and you cant just choose to deny a million years of human evolution because you feel nicer about it that way.



If you were in a place where no meat was available, but plenty of plant-life, you could, and would, survive. I don't think either of our statements mean anything :D

_*however, if all you had to eat was meat, you would absolutely die. Scurvy's bad. But there wouldn't be any meat, because the animals you would be eating would not exist either without plants. Not praising the tree-spirits yet, just stating a factt._



			
				para-thesis said:
			
		

> Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal. But you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?



How did you get that impression? He actually comes across as pretty grounded. For a Laotian. 

The manner in which you feed yourself should really always have ethics as a vital part. I don't believe we need to crush the world to get what we need. There's different way's to act out that conclusion, I've chosen one way; I support that and all other ways people try to eat conscientiously. There's no need to shit on someone's choice just because its not important to you. IMO, there is nothing wrong if someone chooses to eat meat; do what you want.


----------



## turkalurk

really willow?  What is wrong with you and why do you like to make an ass of yourself by always ass-uming I am talking to you when I am talking to murphy again.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It wasn't at all clear who that comment was directed towards.
I, too, thought it might have been directed at me.
Sometimes you need to be a little more clear.

You're consistently hostile, turk.
Willow, on the other hand, is mostly friendly.
You have no case.



> haven't seen many vegan tough guys. Herbivores are usually the prey. Just sayin...



Vegetarians are more likely to be passive, when there is no point in being otherwise.
But - when it comes to life and death - the will to survive trumps ethical dietary choices.
If it is between me and someone else, I will do anything I have to in order to survive.

Strict vegetarians/vegans with unconditionally passive temperaments might have trouble in a post-apocalyptic situation, but I wouldn't.
There are a lot of meat eaters that I know who would have more issues adjusting, than I would.
I'm ready to kill to survive, but not to kill for taste.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> It wasn't at all clear who that comment was directed towards.
> I, too, thought it might have been directed at me.
> Sometimes you need to be a little more clear.
> 
> You're consistently hostile, turk.
> Willow, on the other hand, is mostly friendly.
> You have no case.
> 
> 
> 
> Vegetarians are more likely to be passive, when there is no point in being otherwise.
> But - when it comes to life and death - the will to survive trumps ethical dietary choices.
> If it is between me and someone else, I will do anything I have to in order to survive.
> 
> Strict vegetarians/vegans with unconditionally passive temperaments might have trouble in a post-apocalyptic situation, but I wouldn't.
> There are a lot of meat eaters that I know who would have more issues adjusting, than I would.
> I'm ready to kill to survive, but not to kill for taste.



wow, dude, you would be willing to kill me and eat me to survive?  That's fucked up.


----------



## para-thesis

_*however, if all you had to eat was meat, you would absolutely die. Scurvy's bad. But there wouldn't be any meat, because the animals you would be eating would not exist either without plants. Not praising the tree-spirits yet, just stating a factt._

actually thats not true. The Inuit as what23 stated earlier survived on an exclusively meat-eating diet without contracting scurvy. I think you're misunderstanding scurvy to be honest.


How did you that impression? He actually comes across as pretty grounded. For a Laotian. 

The manner in which you feed yourself should really always have ethics as a vital part. I don't believe we need to crush the world to get what we need. There's different way's to act out that conclusion, I've chosen one way; I support that and all other ways people try to eat conscientiously. There's no need to shit on someone's choice just because its not important to you. IMO, there is nothing wrong if someone chooses to eat meat; do what you want.[/QUOTE]

there is however something strange about someone denying their own nature just for the sake of being some sort of ultra-pacifist. And the claim that a vegan has less impact on the environment is false, organic farming and soy farming in particular produce massive amounts of erosion,  ask any farmer.


----------



## para-thesis

By eating the liver and brain of marine animals you are provided enough vitamin c easily to not contract scurvy. In fact, you can survive and thrive on a diet consisting of only meat and fat for years. Now tell me how you can survive on a diet based soley off of plants and berries? Without vitamin b12 or protein deficiencies?


----------



## para-thesis

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579550002888434432


----------



## ForEverAfter

^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?

It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...

...

You keep talking about denying our nature.
Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?

It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?

I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?



> wow, dude, you would be willing to kill me and eat me to survive? That's fucked up.



You keep falling back on the same sarcastic stereotypes that don't even have any basis.
As far as conversation goes, it's getting dull... like the second season of a predictable sit-com.
I never said it was wrong to kill... In fact, I said the opposite (more than once).
It isn't fucked up to kill, for survival; It's fucked up to kill for no reason.


----------



## para-thesis

ForEverAfter said:


> ^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...
> 
> ...
> 
> You keep talking about denying our nature.
> Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
> You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
> Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?
> 
> It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?
> 
> I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?
> 
> It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?


----------



## para-thesis

And yet you label me the hypocrite while overlooking the fact that you deny your own omnivorism at base level. I never said that humans should live more naturally,  I said that we should eat more naturally,  there's sort of a difference. ..


----------



## murphythecat

but why do you talk about organic food?
also, its apple to orange to compare the environmental impact of veggies and fruits vs meat. both has a impact, but theres dramatic differences and we shouldnt compare them.


para-thesis said:


> ForEverAfter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...
> 
> ...
> 
> You keep talking about denying our nature.
> Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
> You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
> Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?
> 
> It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?
> 
> I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?
> 
> It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?
Click to expand...


----------



## para-thesis

Why not compare organic farming to conventional? Especially when i'm willing to bet the majority of vegans/veggies probably tend to think they're being such good boys and girls by only eating organically farmed, supposedly sustainable, veggies and fruits?


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> ^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...
> 
> ...
> 
> You keep talking about denying our nature.
> Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
> You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
> Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?
> 
> It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?
> 
> I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep falling back on the same sarcastic stereotypes that don't even have any basis.
> As far as conversation goes, it's getting dull... like the second season of a predictable sit-com.
> I never said it was wrong to kill... In fact, I said the opposite (more than once).
> It isn't fucked up to kill, for survival; It's fucked up to kill for no reason.



so its ok if you have a reason and hunger is a good reason to kill.  Did you not imply that if you were hungry enough you would kill a human to sustain yourself?


----------



## ForEverAfter

No, I didn't imply that.

...



> It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?



Okay, what's your point?

I don't eat a lot of soy, nor do I eat a lot of organic produce...
What does it (the sustainability of organic / soy farming) have to do with veganism / vegetarianism?



> And yet you label me the hypocrite while overlooking the fact that you deny your own omnivorism at base level. I never said that humans should live more naturally, I said that we should eat more naturally, there's sort of a difference. ..



I'm not denying that I am an omnivore... (which wouldn't make me a hypocrite, anyway.) I'm saying that despite the fact that I am an omnivore, I chose not to be... I don't see the harm in making this choice, and - aside from repeating that "it's not natural!" - you haven't really provided any explanation to the contrary.

And, you still haven't answered the computer question. I know you're making comments about eating naturally, but why draw the line there? Why is it okay to live our lives completely "unnaturally" (for the record, I don't think there's any such thing) but it isn't okay to eat "unnaturally"?

Until you answer these questions, I'll assume that you don't have an answer.
Therein lies the hypocrisy. You apply different standards to different aspects of human lifestyles.
You justify personally contributing to the suffering of animals by insisting that we should eat naturally.
You mentioned that our teeth are strong enough to eat meat... Yet we consume many types of meat that require cooking and tenderizing. Should we use knives, forks and spoons? Is that natural?
Should we cook our food? Is that natural?
Should we use preservatives?
These questions all fit into your guidelines; they are all related to eating.



> I never said that humans should live more naturally, I said that we should eat more naturally, there's sort of a difference.



Why? What is the difference; what is the significance of the difference?
You're making about as much sense as an episode of Pokemon.



> i'm willing to bet the majority of vegans/veggies probably tend to think they're being such good boys and girls by only eating organically farmed, supposedly sustainable, veggies and fruits?



Don't assume such things.
There aren't that many fruits and vegetables that are produced organically, in comparison to non-organically produced fruits and vegetables... and I know a lot of meat-eaters that consume organic produce (organic meat / organic grain / organic fruits / organic vegetables)... You can't, out of convenience, just equate the ethical implications of whether or not to be vegan / vegetarian with the ethical implications of whether or not to consume organic produce.
They aren't the same thing.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> really willow?  What is wrong with you and why do you like to make an ass of yourself by always ass-uming I am talking to you when I am talking to murphy again.



You wrote directly under my post. Its not my fault you can't use basic forum software. You're being weak and unpleasant.


----------



## nuttynutskin

Can anyone here tell me if they would consider eating raw mussels vegan?


----------



## ForEverAfter

I started a thread in healthy living about that and it turned into a mess of people insisting that molluscs cannot be included in a vegan diet, even though I made it clear - repeatedly - that, although it isn't technically vegan, the ethical considerations are the same... since molluscs don't have brains...

I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs and (occasionally) wild game.
There's no point in being absolute about meat, when consuming some types of meat isn't ethically questionable (IMO).
I am not a vegan, I just refer to myself as one for convenience sake.
If I'm out to dinner with someone, I don't want to have a long conversation about ethics.
So, for convenience, I'll just say "I'm vegan"... When really I do eat meat but there's nothing on the menu that I can eat.


----------



## swilow

nuttynutskin said:


> Can anyone here tell me if they would consider eating raw mussels vegan?



Well, as veganism and the accompanying dietary choices are somewhat subjective (I eat honey, Miss Willow doesn't) its hard to answer in anything but broad terms. 

IMO, yes, things like raw mussels, oysters, etc. could be considered vegan by some vegans. I, however, don't actually eat them but that's more a taste thing. Miss Willow doesn't because she thinks its unethical and not vegan. Well known ethicist Peter Singer, an advocate of animal rights and vegetarianism, wrote in his book, Animal Liberation (incredibly dry but well thought out) about such a thing where he considers oyster consumption to be ethical.

If I enjoyed them, I'd probably eat them. 



			
				Foreverafter said:
			
		

> There's no point in being absolute about meat, when consuming some types of meat isn't ethically questionable (IMO).



Agreed. I think there is value in being absolute in regards to consumption of specific meats (for example, its almost always unethical to eat anything endangered though hunger/poverty/shitworld). Perhaps its okay to be absolute about consuming meats farmed in specific ways; I have a friend who is omnivorous but only eats free-range chicken, pigs and no cow or fish. I think we can do without veal and foie gras. I think its okay to be absolute about avoiding factory farmed animals. 

It doesn't make sense to hold absolute values about anything that is as diverse as what we call meat. It would be like someone who dislikes only wine but claims to dislike all liquids. Its too broad of a thing for absolute claims to hold any water (pun intended).


----------



## ForEverAfter

The honey thing is a good point. I really should have thought about that, back in my vegan-oyster thread.
Are people who claim to be vegans and eat honey actually non-vegan?
It is an animal product.



> Miss Willow doesn't because she thinks its unethical and not vegan.



Why unethical?
I'm curious.


----------



## nuttynutskin

ForEverAfter said:


> I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs* and (occasionally) wild game*.



Lol.



ForEverAfter said:


> So, for convenience, I'll just say "I'm vegan"... When really I do eat meat but there's nothing on the menu that I can eat.



I'm Caucasian but for convenience sake I say I'm African American.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I'm Caucasian but for convenience sake I say I'm African American.



Okay. The difference between you and me is: I don't care how you refer to yourself.
If you'd like to identify as African American, that's up to you.
I have no investment in how you self-identity.

You're trying to make me look foolish, across multiple threads.
Maybe you should find something better to do.
Because, frankly, I don't care what you think.



Have a nice day.


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> The honey thing is a good point. I really should have thought about that, back in my vegan-oyster thread.
> Are people who claim to be vegans and eat honey actually non-vegan?
> It is an animal product.



Hmm. Who knows? Maybe. I totally understand that it would be seen as non-vegan, but if you buy it locally in a more raw, from somewhere that operates ethically, and in a more raw state, I don't see a problem. 

That is the same context in which I will occasionally comsume raw organic cow or goats milk, which is maybe twice a year.



> Why unethical?
> I'm curious.



She think its unethical because it is taking something from something without its consent (I think...)

I try to be flexible to some degree


----------



## ForEverAfter

The consent of a mollusc is much like the consent of a carrot, but fair enough.
I just wanted to know if there was a genuine reason, so I could adjust my diet accordingly.
If, ever, I discover that molluscs are sentient I will stop consuming them (farmed).

If it turns out that carrots are sentient, I will stop consuming farmed food altogether.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> You wrote directly under my post. Its not my fault you can't use basic forum software. You're being weak and unpleasant.



you clearly did not know if it was directed at you or not.  You decided to assume it was.  Given our history, that was stupid.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Okay. The difference between you and me is: I don't care how you refer to yourself.
> If you'd like to identify as African American, that's up to you.
> I have no investment in how you self-identity.
> 
> You're trying to make me look foolish, across multiple threads.
> Maybe you should find something better to do.
> Because, frankly, I don't care what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day.



you do a fine job of that yourself.  You want to write about your delusions of being asian, then you have to expect people are going to laugh.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I don't have delusions.
It was a clearly a joke thread.
People were supposed to laugh.

Are you going to stop being hostile towards people on this thread, at some point? You're not targeting me across multiple threads, calling me a crackpot and telling me to "get off the bath salts"... so you're not as bad as him... don't get me wrong... but, don't you have something better to do than make personal comments at people on the internet? Isn't it getting boring?

You're not even particularly good at it.
You don't offend me. At your worst, you're mildly annoying.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> The consent of a mollusc is much like the consent of a carrot, but fair enough.
> I just wanted to know if there was a genuine reason, so I could adjust my diet accordingly.
> If, ever, I discover that molluscs are sentient I will stop consuming them (farmed).
> 
> If it turns out that carrots are sentient, I will stop consuming farmed food altogether.


ignorance is bliss.  all molluscs have a nervous system.  The mollusca phylum is a diverse group that includes the octopus which has a sophisticated nervous system.   Molluscs are part of the animalia kingdom.  All animals are considered sentient, which is what the word means, to be "animated."


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> I don't have delusions.
> It was a clearly a joke thread.
> People were supposed to laugh.
> 
> Are you going to stop being hostile towards people on this thread, at some point? You're not targeting me across multiple threads, calling me a crackpot and telling me to "get off the bath salts"... so you're not as bad as him... don't get me wrong... but, don't you have something better to do than make personal comments at people on the internet? Isn't it getting boring?
> 
> You're not even particularly good at it.
> You don't offend me. At your worst, you're mildly annoying.




hahaha, a joke thread my ass!  you were getting pissed off that people wouldn't take you serious.  You are a weird dude, own it.  I am voicing my genuine observations as inspired by your posts.  No more no less.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I realize I used the wrong word, and I have been using the wrong word for some time.
Octopus is not included in my diet. What I meant by mollusc is oysters / mussels / scallops.
I don't want to attempt to reclassify them as something else, until I investigate what specific family they belong.

But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that oysters / mussels / scallops are not sentient.
I've already had the discussion with numerous people, at length.
I've yet to encounter a compelling counter-argument.

The presence of a nervous system is not evidence of sentience.



> *All animals are considered sentient,* which is what the word means to be animated.



Animation is not sentience. I'd like you to back up the statement in bold, if you can. I'm not going to engage you in a long discussion about this, partly because I've already had the discussion with other people (as I said) and because you've been a bit hostile and unpleasant towards me in this thread. But, if you provide some compelling evidence that suggests that (let's say) oysters are sentient, please do.

Ignorance is bliss hardly applies.
On the contrary, I'm on a mission to determine what is ethical to consume and construct a diet around that.
If you can prove that I shouldn't be eating oysters / mussels / scallops, I'll happily take them out of my diet.
In the end, I want the truth.
But I don't want to bicker.



> hahaha, a joke thread my ass! you were getting pissed off that people wouldn't take you serious. You are a weird dude, own it.



I talked about it being a joke thread, and - beyond that - it was obvious. Numerous contributors knew that it was a joke thread (or, at least, highly suspected it) and many people who read it told me (either via PM or on the thread itself) they thought it was funny... I'm not sure if you read the whole thread... Maybe read it again, keeping in mind that it's a joke... It's seriously pretty fucking obvious, man. This seems like a classic example of how off the mark you are, sometimes... Like you really don't hear what people are saying. You read the words, but you totally miss the tone and the point.



> I am voicing my genuine observations as inspired by your posts. No more no less.



I know.
Your perception is distorted.


----------



## murphythecat

about mollusk.
you should do reasearch at how sea animals get hurts in the process of harvesting mollusk. thats enough for me to say that even if mollusk cannot feel pain, the way we harvest them kill and harm many sentient sea animals. its unethical to eat them imo


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> I realize I used the wrong word, and I have been using the wrong word for some time.
> Octopus is not included in my diet. What I meant by mollusc is oysters / mussels / scallops.
> I don't want to attempt to reclassify them as something else, until I investigate what specific family they belong.
> 
> But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that oysters / mussels / scallops are not sentient.
> I've already had the discussion with numerous people, at length.
> I've yet to encounter a compelling counter-argument.
> 
> The presence of a nervous system is not evidence of sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> Animation is not sentience. I'd like you to back up the statement in bold, if you can. I'm not going to engage you in a long discussion about this, partly because I've already had the discussion with other people (as I said) and because you've been a bit hostile and unpleasant towards me in this thread. But, if you provide some compelling evidence that suggests that (let's say) oysters are sentient, please do.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss hardly applies.
> On the contrary, I'm on a mission to determine what is ethical to consume and construct a diet around that.
> If you can prove that I shouldn't be eating oysters / mussels / scallops, I'll happily take them out of my diet.
> In the end, I want the truth.
> But I don't want to bicker.
> 
> 
> 
> I talked about it being a joke thread, and - beyond that - it was obvious. Numerous contributors knew that it was a joke thread (or, at least, highly suspected it) and many people who read it told me (either via PM or on the thread itself) they thought it was funny... I'm not sure if you read the whole thread... Maybe read it again, keeping in mind that it's a joke... It's seriously pretty fucking obvious, man. This seems like a classic example of how off the mark you are, sometimes... Like you really don't hear what people are saying. You read the words, but you totally miss the tone and the point.
> 
> 
> 
> I know.
> Your perception is distorted.



sentience and animation used to mean the same thing.  To be sentient meant to be alive.  The word has evolved to include a subjective  perception.  The problem in determining which organisms are "sentient" is we must first define what qualifies an organism as being sentient.  So, we say it must have an awareness, a subjective experience.   We really don't know what organisms experience "feelings" we only know which organisms possess structures similar to a centralized nervous system like ours.  We can only compare anatomical structures and look for similar mechanisms for processing information in a way that can be interpreted as an experience.  But, its all mostly bullshit because in the end, we don't know what another other organism experiences.  They might have a system made of entirely different components that interacts in a way that produces an experience of "feeling."  

Perhaps you mean sapience?  Cause anything with a centralized nervous system is capable of experiencing sensation.  We are also now realizing things can also be sentient without one.  Sentience can occur in animals that have similar structures that operate under similar mechanisms.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> you should do reasearch at how sea animals get hurts in the process of harvesting mollusk.



I eat farmed molluscs, so that isn't an issue.



> Perhaps you mean sapience?



You're so patronizing, sometimes. I told you I've already had this discussion a couple of times.
I know what sentience is and I meant sentience.
There is considerable debate about the issue.
I don't really want to discuss it (with you).
Let's not.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> I eat farmed molluscs, so that isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> You're so patronizing, sometimes. I told you I've already had this discussion a couple of times.
> I know what sentience is and I meant sentience.
> There is considerable debate about the issue.
> I don't really want to discuss it (with you).
> Let's not.



Right, must be very hard being so confused on where to draw the line.


----------



## turkalurk

doesn't matter if you fooled the others with your back pedaling.  You clearly implied you were being serious.  Once you realized how ridiculous you were being, then you made it into a joke.  You aren't fooling me.


----------



## ForEverAfter

You're like those people that read satirical articles in fake online newspapers and fail to realize that they're joking... 



> You aren't fooling me.



The first 6 months I was in a relationship with my current girlfriend, I convinced her that there was a Nazi soldier in my family tree and that my mother was really embarrassed about it... That was one of my longer pranks... You said that I was a strange person and I should own it... Well, I do own it... Is it stranger to create a thread about being a Laotian midget in a full-sized Caucasian body if you truly believe it, or is it stranger to do it if you don't believe it... Who's crazier: the crazy person; or the person pretending to be crazy? Is there a difference? In the end, you don't really know me... You think you do, but you don't... I can say anything to anyone with a straight face... Doing it on the internet is child's play...



> Right, must be very hard being so confused on where to draw the line.



Yeah, mate.
I'm confused and you've got it all figured out.
There are no such thing as joke threads.
There is no such thing as satire.
Can we stop, now?
This is boring.


----------



## para-thesis

Does anyone think that maybe there are more important things to be worried about than the ethical treatment of a cow? Like, other human beings, for just one example. Or maybe the over-fishing of the ocean which constitutes a huge impact on both the livelyhood of millions of humans and the ecosystem which makes up 3/4 of the world's surface area?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Sure, but we don't have to address one thing at a time do we?

Murder is worse than theft.
So, according to your logic, we should - what - allow theft until we solve murder?
Nobody is suggesting that the ethical treatment of animals is priority number one.


----------



## para-thesis

Ya man, I know, poor cows and pigs, ducks, and geese, boo hoo. Way more important to tell first world people how to ethically eat than to help third world children learn how to raise said animals to eat.


----------



## murphythecat

forverafter, i just read about mollusk this morning in vegan forum. evidence seems to show that mollusk cant really experience pain. I think its safe to eat them as long they are the farmed one, not harvested in seas.

here some quote:
_I found additional academic reviews that supported the idea that sensory afferents were not present in sessile bivalves. These structures are not difficult to detect in primitive organisms --  they are either there or they are not there. Given that these devolved animals lack even the most basic apparatus for sensation, the only way to propose that sessile bivalves can sense pain (much less experience it) is to propose some completely unknown mechanism._
_To paraphrase: scientists have found no evidence that sessile bivalves can respond to environmental stimuli or tissue injury. While motile bivalves such as scallops and clams can clearly respond to their environement, sessile (permanently anchored and motionless) bivalves are for all intents and purposes sea mushrooms._


----------



## murphythecat

para-thesis said:


> Ya man, I know, poor cows and pigs, ducks, and geese, boo hoo. Way more important to tell first world people how to ethically eat than to help third world children learn how to raise said animals to eat.


we are not talking about poor Africans who dont have a choice but to eat what they can. we are talking about us rich people who could choose to not eat farmed animals but still decide to.

lets just say, I can excuse much more easily the fact they eat meat then why rich (and we are all rich if we have a computer) eat meat.

sure, but that thread is not about that.. vegetarian doesnt eat fish.
and, evidence have shown that meat farms are probably the most damaging industry for the eco system





para-thesis said:


> Does anyone think that maybe there are more important things to be worried about than the ethical treatment of a cow? Like, other human beings, for just one example. Or maybe the over-fishing of the ocean which constitutes a huge impact on both the livelyhood of millions of humans and the ecosystem which makes up 3/4 of the world's surface area?


----------



## para-thesis

I think if you were to look at issues and ethically choose which one's are more important to the world, yes, you have to pick and choose which ones are more important to take care of first.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Thanks, Murphy.

(Yes, from what I've read, it seems that there is no more reason to assume oysters can feel pain any more than plants can feel pain.)



> Ya man, I know, poor cows and pigs, ducks, and geese, boo hoo. Way more important to tell first world people how to ethically eat than to help third world children learn how to raise said animals to eat.



You said that with all the grace and sophistication of a high school bully.
Please take it down a notch.



> I think if you were to look at issues and ethically choose which one's are more important to the world, yes, you have to pick and choose which ones are more important to take care of first.



You really haven't thought that through, very well.
Society didn't just fall into place, you know...
Who chooses which issues are important?

Because we might disagree on the importance of not torturing animals.
Which one of us decides if it enough of a priority, to warrant any attention whatsoever?

What other issues - out of interest - do you think we should not devote any attention to?
(It will be very revealing to find out the answer to this question, so please don't skip it.)


----------



## murphythecat

para-thesis said:


> I think if you were to look at issues and ethically choose which one's are more important to the world, yes, you have to pick and choose which ones are more important to take care of first.


lol. 
please, tell me what you do in life to reduce african suffering?
why should you dont care about animals suffering? not because theres terrible things that is happening right now in the world to humans, doesnt meant that eating animals its okay. we are animals like they are.


----------



## para-thesis

O ya, lets just take care of all corruption and pain in the world at the same time, if we believe it, we can do it. You sound like those idiotic occupy wallstreet dumbasses. We have to take care of all suffering created by the big bad corporations at the same time, instead of focusing in on the issues that matter first.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> You sound like those idiotic occupy wallstreet dumbasses



You sound like you need to get laid.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> You're like those people that read satirical articles in fake online newspapers and fail to realize that they're joking...
> 
> 
> 
> The first 6 months I was in a relationship with my current girlfriend, I convinced her that there was a Nazi soldier in my family tree and that my mother was really embarrassed about it... That was one of my longer pranks... You said that I was a strange person and I should own it... Well, I do own it... Is it stranger to create a thread about being a Laotian midget in a full-sized Caucasian body if you truly believe it, or is it stranger to do it if you don't believe it... Who's crazier: the crazy person; or the person pretending to be crazy? Is there a difference? In the end, you don't really know me... You think you do, but you don't... I can say anything to anyone with a straight face... Doing it on the internet is child's play...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, mate.
> I'm confused and you've got it all figured out.
> There are no such thing as joke threads.
> There is no such thing as satire.
> Can we stop, now?
> This is boring.



i don't pretend to know anything about you other than my opinion on the words you use.  Whether you were lying when you said you were serious, or whether you are lying about it all being a joke, it remains consistent that you are willing to tell lies in pathological ways for what you claim to be your own amusement.  You are even willing to undermine your girlfriend's trust in your word in pursuit of self pleasure.  Yes, I get that this conversation does not please your ego.  We get that you are pretty much admitting to being an internet troll so nothing you say can be taken seriously.  I can move on now.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Great, I'm a troll
Move on.


----------



## para-thesis

ForEverAfter said:


> Great, I'm a troll
> Move on.



You're not just a troll. You're a self-righteous, idiot that likes to pat themselves on the back for being so moral in the midst of a society thats sooo lost (dramatic  sigh)


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yep, you're spot on.
I'm a self-righteous idiot.


----------



## turkalurk

ForEverAfter said:


> Great, I'm a troll
> Move on.



exactly, from what your saying, I could deduce that you could just as well be pretending to be a vegan.  You have no ethical reservations about deceiving people, so your word ought to be considered irrelevant.


----------



## para-thesis

teach us all how to eat ethically, you great defender of the cow you.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yawn.



> teach us all how to eat ethically, you great defender of the cow you.



I'm not standing on a street corner, preaching to pedestrians.
I'm discussing the topic at hand.

If you don't want to discuss the ethics of vegetarianism then don't click on a thread called "the ethics of vegetarianism"... It's pretty simple, really...



> so your word ought to be considered irrelevant.



So, if it is irrelevant, move on.
Leave me alone.


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> exactly, from what your saying, I could deduce that you could just as well be pretending to be a vegan.  You have no ethical reservations about deceiving people, so your word ought to be considered irrelevant.


what are you talking about. theres nothing that shows that foreverafter isnt vegan. if you refer to mollusk, you should do some research on the matter. 
dont you have anything better to do then personnal attacks?





turkalurk said:


> You are even willing to undermine your girlfriend's trust in your word in pursuit of self pleasure.


ridiculous


----------



## Xorkoth

Some unpleasant people have moved into this thread... maybe we could cut that ridiculous shit-talking and personal attacking out and actually stay on topic?


----------



## turkalurk

isn't calling someone "unpleasant" a form of "shit" talking?


----------



## para-thesis

You were inviting dissenting opinions on the topic, so I provided. If you didnt want anyone disagreeing on your opinions, dont start an open forum, its as simple as that. And i'm having trouble understanding why its impossible for people to vote on which issues are the most important ones? Instead of constantly having to listen to someone's  politically ideological problems when their party's in office.


----------



## para-thesis

murphythecat said:


> lol.
> please, tell me what you do in life to reduce african suffering?
> why should you dont care about animals suffering? not because theres terrible things that is happening right now in the world to humans, doesnt meant that eating animals its okay. we are animals like they are.



I give to charities every single week, lol. what do you do? And please tell me the inverse, why should I worry about cows and pigs more than human beings?


----------



## murphythecat

para-thesis said:


> I give to charities every single week, lol. what do you do? And please tell me the inverse, why should I worry about cows and pigs more than human beings?


lol



turkalurk said:


> isn't calling someone "unpleasant" a form of "shit" talking?


lol


para-thesis said:


> You were inviting dissenting opinions on the topic, so I provided. If you didnt want anyone disagreeing on your opinions, dont start an open forum, its as simple as that. And i'm having trouble understanding why its impossible for people to vote on which issues are the most important ones? Instead of constantly having to listen to someone's  politically ideological problems when their party's in office.


we're convinced. you promoted such strong arguments! thanks for your contribution!


----------



## nuttynutskin

turkalurk said:


> you do a fine job of that yourself.  You want to write about your delusions of being asian, then you have to expect people are going to laugh.



Believe it or not I had not even seen that thread when I made my comment, it was just a coincidence. But yeah, I'm not going to take seriously at all someone who claims to be vegan and admits to consuming not only molluscs but wild game, and also themselves admits to being a troll.



turkalurk said:


> exactly, from what your saying, I could deduce that you could just as well be pretending to be a vegan.  You have no ethical reservations about deceiving people, so your word ought to be considered irrelevant.



Yup, based on his other postings it wouldn't surprise me either.


----------



## ebola?

parathesis said:
			
		

> I think if you were to look at issues and ethically choose which one's are more important to the world, yes, you have to pick and choose which ones are more important to take care of first.



Really?  I don't eat meat, and it literally takes away _zero_ time that could otherwise be devoted to other activities.   No one's really been arguing that dietary practices trump other ethical concerns, as there's no reason that this argument needs to be made.




			
				turk said:
			
		

> i don't pretend to know anything about you other than my opinion on the words you use. Whether you were lying when you said you were serious, or whether you are lying about it all being a joke, it remains consistent that you are willing to tell lies in pathological ways for what you claim to be your own amusement. You are even willing to undermine your girlfriend's trust in your word in pursuit of self pleasure. Yes, I get that this conversation does not please your ego. We get that you are pretty much admitting to being an internet troll so nothing you say can be taken seriously. I can move on now.



Honestly, you seem to be getting highly irritated that people are _not_ taking offense at your posts.  I find this one of the most insufferable of personality-traits, but that's just me; I hope that I've somehow misappraised the situation.

ebola


----------



## para-thesis

You however have spent (as well as your compatriots) a fair amount of time posting on it here


----------



## ForEverAfter

Of course we have: it's the topic at hand.



> i'm having trouble understanding why its impossible for people to vote on which issues are the most important ones



Because minority opinions will not be represented.
See: history.

Who's to say that you will agree with the outcome of the vote?
What if the issues that you think are important aren't considered important?

Also, are you suggesting we shut down entire fields of study? And, what, do you think the people working in those fields will just move over to other "more worthwhile" fields?

People researching cures for rare disorders, for example.
Is that worthwhile? Because it's not going to get the vote if we have a finite number of causes to address?
What about homosexual rights? Is that really important?

How many slots are their available, in your theoretical system, for worthwhile causes?


----------



## Journyman16

murphythecat said:


> what are you talking about. theres nothing that shows that foreverafter isnt vegan. if you refer to mollusk, you should do some research on the matter.


Well... actually... There is. :D


ForEverAfter said:


> ...
> *I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs and (occasionally) wild game.
> There's no point in being absolute about meat, when consuming some types of meat isn't ethically questionable (IMO).
> I am not a vegan, I just refer to myself as one for convenience sake.*
> ...


----------



## ForEverAfter

> *I made it clear - repeatedly - that, although it isn't technically vegan, the ethical considerations are the same... since molluscs don't have brains...*
> 
> I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs and (occasionally) wild game.



Funny, how you took that out of context.

For the last time: I'm not technically vegan, but there is no term for what I am. So, for convenience sake, I just say I'm vegan... Rather than being absolute about meat, I consume meat that does not contribute towards the suffering of animals...

Why is it so important for meat eaters to prove that I'm not (technically) vegan?
I am not vegan, and I've said that repeatedly.
I made an entire thread about it.

Nobody is making any effort to discredit willow as a vegan, since he consumes honey.

If I said I was gay and, once or twice in my lifetime, I had sex with women...
Then you might insist that I'm bisexual. And you might be right, technically.
But that doesn't prevent me from identifying as gay.

In the end, I don't care what you or anybody thinks about whether or not I'm a vegan.
You're not catching me out. I made a thread about it, before this thread existed, and I was very clear.
Can we stop the mind-numbing circular repetition, already?
I'm not going to stop referring to myself as vegan.
I don't care what anybody thinks about it.


----------



## ebola?

> Why is it so important for meat eaters to prove that I'm not (technically) vegan?



It's just a straight-up ad-hominem; people seem fundamentally uneasy with the fact that hypocrisy doesn't invalidate one's argument.

ebola


----------



## nuttynutskin

ForEverAfter said:


> Why is it so important for meat eaters to prove that I'm not (technically) vegan?



Because you claim to be a vegan and then admit that you aren't. What do you expect people are going to say? Your pseudo intellectual/psychosis induced rantings aren't contributing to anything useful as far as I can tell. After doing some browsing all of your arguments in threads pretty much read the same. I'm sorry to break it to you but you're not some misunderstood genius who is going to save the planet if only someone would listen to you. If you would just quit trying to revolutionize words that already have a clear cut meaning people would probably leave you alone.


----------



## swilow

para-thesis said:


> Does anyone think that maybe there are more important things to be worried about than the ethical treatment of a cow? Like, other human beings, for just one example. Or maybe the over-fishing of the ocean which constitutes a huge impact on both the livelyhood of millions of humans and the ecosystem which makes up 3/4 of the world's surface area?



I agree that they are very important topics indeed. Overfishing is one of the primary reasons I don't eat fish.

But we can discuss both things if you want. Why not start a thread on such a topic? I am guessing you are aware that the reason we are discussing veganism/vegetarianism in this thread is because that is the topic I introduced. You can do that too, but I don't think this is the right thread for it. 

But, as a quick question, do you think that we shouldn't try and do what we think is right because there are greater wrongs out there? Do you think we cannot discuss 'lesser' lifeforms whilst our own is suffering? My motivation for being a vegan is to avoid causing more damage to our only home. This is appealing to me, because by adopting certain dietary practises, I feel like I can have a positive effect on both animals and humans. My main argument against modern farming is because it is contributing to our possible ensuing doom. Can you see how being respectiful and compassionate to animals can also benefit our breed of animal?

Side-note: I'm not sure why you are choosing to be so confrontational. You don't benefit your case at all, and in fact imply a certain hyper-jumpy sensitivity to it; when insult is found where none exists, it is the subject projecting their own guilt onto others by imaginging their condemnation of you. No vegan should look down on an omnivore who is doing the natural thing. Speaking for myself, I don't look down at anyone in this thread for their diet (I reserve the right to judge people by how they treat others though...) and I don't understand why some meat-eaters are being so aggressive, as if they are truly _opposed_ to vegetarianism/veganism. That's an odd thing to be opposed to IMO. 



turkalurk said:


> doesn't matter if you fooled the others with your back pedaling.  You clearly implied you were being serious.  Once you realized how ridiculous you were being, then you made it into a joke.  You aren't fooling me.



But he has fooled you. He's not a troll and you think he is because you are unwilling to listen to what he actually says in your determination to insult him. You are, as appears to be increasingly common, incorrect in your assertion. I seriously think you need to back off a bit. Your contributions are becoming boring and off-topic most of the time, because they are repetitive and fighting against statements no-one has made. This has to be tedious for you to write because it reads that way.  



turkalurk said:


> isn't calling someone "unpleasant" a form of "shit" talking?



No, its not. Shit-talking is when you call someone an "ass".



nuttynutskin said:


> Because you claim to be a vegan and then admit that you aren't. What do you expect people are going to say? Your pseudo intellectual/psychosis induced rantings aren't contributing to anything useful as far as I can tell. After doing some browsing all of your arguments in threads pretty much read the same. I'm sorry to break it to you but you're not some misunderstood genius who is going to save the planet if only someone would listen to you. If you would just quit trying to revolutionize words that already have a clear cut meaning people would probably leave you alone.



He apparently made two claims. I think you might be running with the claim that you feel projects the most shit onto him because you don't care about this topic remotely and just want to pick holes in people. You require a certain integrity that you don't convincingly display, so it just feels like you are being unreasonable in your comments rather then actively seeking the truth.


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 





> i think you might be running with the claim that you feel projects the most shit onto him because you don't care about this topic remotely and just want to pick holes in people. You require a certain integrity that you don't convincingly display, so it just feels like you are being unreasonable in your comments rather then actively seeking the truth.



qft



> Because you claim to be a vegan and then admit that you aren't. What do you expect people are going to say? Your pseudo intellectual/psychosis induced rantings aren't contributing to anything useful as far as I can tell. After doing some browsing all of your arguments in threads pretty much read the same. I'm sorry to break it to...



Try and understand this:
I don't care what you think of me, or my posts.
I don't understand why you care enough about me, or my posts, to bother "browsing".



Find something better to do, maybe?
(You can keep wasting your time, of course. It's entirely up to you.)




...

(I'm wrapping all off topic discussion with nsfw tags, to reduce forum congestion.)


----------



## Abject

Can I have the last post yet???


----------



## murphythecat

Journyman16 said:


> Well... actually... There is. :D



the mollusk debate in vegan cirlcle is very real and theres a lot of talking about whether or not vegan should eat mollusk and valid argument for eating mollusk. do some rersearch about it.
eating mollusk would be one of the few exception a vegan could possibly eat and still be considered vegan.


----------



## ebola?

I'll come out: I consider cnidarians okay to eat. 

ebola


----------



## Xorkoth

I think people should work on bettering the problems in the world that they either feel strongly about or feel they actually can do something about.  For some, this is being vegetarian/vegan to stop contributing to the problems facing the world from the factory farming industries.  For some, this is not eating fish to not contribute to overfishing.  For some, this is not using fossil fuels when at all possible to not contribute to carbon dioxide poisoning of the atmosphere.  For some, this is devoting their lives to an issue such as malaria or AIDS or whatever, and working on a cure.  For some, this is doing the same towards a rare, uncommon but deadly disease that a relative succumbed to.  If we all work on different things, a lot of different things will get better.  It makes no sense to say, hey, this issue I feel is more important, so let's ignore everything else until it's fixed, then move on to the next thing I think is most important, etc.  Yes, human suffering is a huge issue, one I care more about than animal suffering.  I care more about the destruction of the planet than any animal's (including human's) suffering because it will lead to the greatest level of suffering/extinction.  But it's the opposite of sensible for me to condemn vegans for not worrying about the most important issue we face.  As if that's even true.  I don't know how to prevent us from destroying ourselves by wanton excess in burning fossil fuels and raping the planet of life, but I do know some ways to help reduce the suffering of animals.  I am not vegan or even vegetarian but I don't support factory farming, I eat meat from free-range animals.  Should I stop doing that and go back to factory-farmed because it's not the most important issue in the world I am addressing, or because I'm not doing absolutely everything I can about it?


----------



## swilow

^Good post. The attitude is also seen when people wash their hands of an issue as it is too hard. The weight of suffering on earth makes doing ANYTHING about it worthwhile. If we were to wait for all human pain and distress to be eradicated before we try and enact other positive changes, then we are fucking doomed.


----------



## turkalurk

a troll is someone who makes shit up to gain attention.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> a troll is someone who makes shit up to gain attention.



True. 

Foreverafter's Laotian midget thread was an invention to stimulate discussion so, gladly, we can confirm that he wasn't really being a troll according to your defintion and your insults are baseless. Lets move on now.


----------



## turkalurk

> I'm trans-racial.
> I'm hesitant to post this thread, because everyone I've ever talked to about this issue has - so far - passed it off as as a joke...
> I feel like I have to pretend that it's not a serious issue, for me, and "hide behind the joke".
> Consequently, I feel like nobody has ever truly known me...
> 
> I feel like people are pretty open-minded and patient here, but I don't expect to encounter much understanding.
> Unless you've experienced it first hand, you don't really know what it's like to be an Asian in a Caucasian's body.
> 
> It seems like I'd be taken more seriously if I was trans-gender, which isn't fair.
> I mean, why is it more legitimate to identify as a different gender?
> 
> I know I'm Asian.
> I've always been Asian.
> My skin tone is wrong.
> My hair colour...
> Eye colour...
> All wrong.
> And, I'm too tall.
> 
> I wish I felt comfortable talking to my family about this.
> I'm afraid to even talk to a doctor about it.
> 
> Why are people so narrow-minded and quick to judge?



sorry, he clearly presents this as a serious thread.   Its either he was serious or he was lying.  He claims to be lying, therefore it was a troll thread.  He is an admitted prankster hence where the name "troll" came to describe people on the internet that make up stories for entertainment value.


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> Really?  I don't eat meat, and it literally takes away _zero_ time that could otherwise be devoted to other activities.   No one's really been arguing that dietary practices trump other ethical concerns, as there's no reason that this argument needs to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, you seem to be getting highly irritated that people are _not_ taking offense at your posts.  I find this one of the most insufferable of personality-traits, but that's just me; I hope that I've somehow misappraised the situation.
> 
> ebola



maybe you are projecting because I am not at all irritated.  You seem irritated, though, as you mention being afflicted with one of the most insufferable of personality traits.  More shit talking I suppose.   Good job!


----------



## ebola?

_Off-topic:_



			
				turk said:
			
		

> maybe you are projecting because I am not at all irritated.



Ah, cool.  That makes me wonder, though, why you were so quick to steer conversation back toward open contention on the last couple of pages.  It certainly didn't seem to be in the service of proving any particular point.



> You seem irritated, though, as you mention being afflicted with one of the most insufferable of personality traits.



So...you're saying that I get irritated when people fail to take offense at me?  Er...maybe, though it doesn't really seem like it.  But of course I'm irritated: I really don't enjoy being called on to act in a disciplinary role.



> More shit talking I suppose. Good job!



So... this is what passes for wit nowadays?   Really, you shouldn't go so far as to make invalid inferences in the service of fashioning snazzy-sounding rhetoric. . .

ebola


----------



## Journyman16

ForEverAfter said:


> Funny, how you took that out of context.


Given you posted before me and after me, I presume this is aimed at me. 

Try reading... it is edifying. I quoted you (the part you chose NOT to re-quote) because Murphy said there is nothing to show you are not vegan and you quite clearly state you are not. You also eat game as well as molluscs. So no matter what the 'debate' is about molluscs, you clearly state you are NOT vegan and you also state you eat meat.

Whether or not you show a level of cowardice by claiming veganism because you don't want to be truthful about not wanting to eat what others are having is up to you, but YOU STATE you are not a vegan. 





> ​I am not a vegan, I just refer to myself as one for convenience sake.


So maybe read what is being said instead of trying to pick a fight over something you clearly said and were quoted on.

Oh... and BTW... there is certainly a term for what you are. 

ready for it...? 

Omnivore! :D (just like the rest of us)


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 



The best case scenario is you being upset about something, turk.
I assume, for your sake, that you are upset and you can't admit it (because of pride).
I mean: if that's not the case - then, what? - you're just being unpleasant for the sake of it?
I, honestly, think you're better than that... Maybe you're not; maybe, I'm being naive.

You're wrong about the Laotian midget thread and your efforts to tarnish my name fall flat.
Even if you had a point, you've lost credibility due to your consistently immature and antagonistic attitudes.
You've sabotaged your own ability to be taken seriously, but it can be quite easily repaired.

Tone it down, a bit.
This is the vegetarian thread.
It isn't the place to discuss other unrelated threads, like the Laotian midget thread.
And, it isn't the place to repeatedly attempt to discredit and insult other members.
Maybe you should go to the Lounge, when you get an urge to do this?
(Keep in mind, though, they will rip you a new asshole.)

I suspect it's pointless trying to reason with you, but my faith in other people never dies.
Here's hoping that you read this and something clicks in your brain.

Pranksters are not trolls.
I started the thread to facilitate discussion and to make people laugh.
There's nothing wrong with that, despite how hard you try to spin it so there is.



			
				Jman said:
			
		

> you clearly state you are NOT vegan and you also state you eat meat.
> 
> Whether or not you show a level of cowardice by claiming veganism because you don't want to be truthful about not wanting to eat what others are having is up to you, but YOU STATE you are not a vegan.



Yeah I know what I said. I'm not vegan and I just use the term for convenience sake.
I've been saying that, consistently, for almost 6 months now.
If you think I'm a coward, that's fine. You don't know me.

If there's anything else you need to get out of your system, please do it now.
That goes for you, too, turk... Let's not draw this out over the next month.
Just string all your of insults together and fire away.
They have no effect on me; I don't care.



			
				Jman said:
			
		

> Oh... and BTW... there is certainly a term for what you are.
> 
> ready for it...?
> 
> Omnivore!  (just like the rest of us)



I never said anything to the contrary. In fact:



			
				me said:
			
		

> I'm not denying that I am an omnivore... I'm saying that despite the fact that I am an omnivore...



I have been very clear about the so-called hypocrisy.




(I'm wrapping all off topic discussion with nsfw tags, to reduce forum congestion.)


----------



## nuttynutskin

turkalurk said:


> a troll is someone who makes shit up to gain attention.



I never even would have posted in this thread until he posted an obvious troll post under a meal I posted in one of the Healthy Living threads out of nowhere because he obviously was still harboring anger by things I posted in his raw mussels thread MONTHS ago I guess. I mean, this is the internet and everyone is going to be facetious once in a while, but from what I've seen he just goes out of his way to instigate and provoke people, then when called out tries to make himself look like he's superior.



ForEverAfter said:


> Tone it down, a bit.
> This is the vegetarian thread.
> It isn't the place to discuss other unrelated threads, like the Laotian midget thread.
> And, it isn't the place to repeatedly attempt to discredit and insult other members.



Funny, you've done the exact same thing to me and probably other members. Projection much?


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 





> I never even would have posted in this thread until he posted an obvious troll post under a meal I posted in one of the Healthy Living threads out of nowhere because he obviously was still harboring anger by things I posted in his raw mussels thread MONTHS ago I guess. I mean, this is the internet and everyone is going to be facetious once in a while, but from what I've seen he just goes out of his way to instigate and provoke people, then when called out tries to make himself look like he's superior.



I didn't mean any offense in that HL thread, and I had no idea who you were (or that you had posted stuff in my oyster thread) when I made that comment about your username... I was stoned. Perhaps I shouldn't have said it. I apologize... I've since gone back to the oyster thread and now I remember our interactions. I'm not going to bother quoting them in this thread, because we've gone far enough off topic, but they stand for themselves. You were being weirdly antagonistic back then, too: calling my diet asinine; implying that I'm insane; telling me I have an eating disorder; and, repeatedly making statements in capital letters.

Like I said, I'm sorry about that single comment I made. If my username was cockycockskin, though, I'd expect - occasionally - for people to react to that... (even though cock can also mean rooster).



> It isn't the place to discuss other unrelated threads, like the Laotian midget thread.
> And, it isn't the place to repeatedly attempt to discredit and insult other members.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you've done the exact same thing to me and probably other members. Projection much?
Click to expand...


I'm not perfect, but I don't think I've discussed other unrelated threads, unless I'm defending myself and responding directly to attempts to discredit me / inflammatory comments about other threads. I certainly haven't attempted to discredit people in this thread by trolling through their post history and referencing other threads... But, yeah, I've been inappropriate in the past / and in other threads.

That doesn't mean I'm projecting.
My doing wrong doesn't justify you doing wrong, nor does it make your wrongs right.
This squabbling has gone on for multiple pages. Can we move on, yet? 
I mean, how long is this going to take?




(I'm wrapping all off topic discussion with nsfw tags, to reduce forum congestion.)

...

I'm going to buy a chicken in a couple of weeks, bond with it, and then decapitate it.
My girlfriend is not happy about this, but it needs to be done.

I suspect that it is going to be the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life.


----------



## Journyman16

ForEverAfter said:


> Yeah I know what I said. I'm not vegan and I just use the term for convenience sake.
> I've been saying that, consistently, for almost 6 months now.
> If you think I'm a coward, that's fine. You don't know me.


I wasn't talking about whether or not you are vegan, I am pointing out you decided to have a go at me because I quoted YOU in response to murphy claiming there was nothing to show you are NOT a vegan. You didn't read it properly (or just saw my name and decided to have a go) and posted.

And yes, although once again you aren't reading properly - I specifically did NOT call you a coward - you seem to spend a lot of time not being truthful with others and personally I wouldn't have dinner with someone I didn't respect enough to be truthful and say, "nothing on here I want to eat" and instead lying to them. 

Imagine how they feel about you when they later see you eating your maccas or KFC?


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 





> I quoted you (the part you chose NOT to re-quote) because Murphy said there is nothing to show you are not vegan and *you quite clearly state you are not. You also eat game as well as molluscs.*



It was quite clear when Murphy said what he did, that - although not technically vegan - molluscs might as well be included in the vegan diet. You have to take into account, sometimes, when reading his posts, that English is not his first language... But, in this case, it's not difficult to decipher. The word mollusc was in his two-sentence post, so your comment - in bold - makes little to no sense to me.



> once again you aren't reading properly



Maybe you aren't.



> I specifically did NOT call you a coward



No, you said "whether or not I'm a coward".
I never said that you called me a coward.

I said "If you think I'm a coward".
My point was: either way, I don't care.




(I'm wrapping all off topic discussion with nsfw tags, to reduce forum congestion.)

...



			
				Jman said:
			
		

> personally I wouldn't have dinner with someone I didn't respect enough to be truthful and say, "nothing on here I want to eat" and instead lying to them.
> 
> Imagine how they feel about you when they later see you eating your maccas or KFC?



One of the reasons I don't go into my diet, socially, is because I want to avoid politics. Saying that I don't want to do what they (the people I'm dining with) are doing, because I think it is ethically wrong, might be misinterpreted - as it has in this thread - as ethical elitism... I don't spend much time outside of this thread discussing my selective veganism, because I'd rather not upset people. (That doesn't apply to this thread, of course, because it is the topic we are discussing and it cannot be avoided.)

It's also awkward, particularly in non-vegan restaurants, to ask waiters a lot of questions about the source of meat and the presence of milk or cheese. There tends to be a lot of unexplained animosity towards vegans, as evidenced on this thread... There's no need to call me a liar or suggest that my friends and family are unworthy of my respect. I don't think that's called for.

As for the "how would they feel" comment: personally, if somebody I met said they were vegan and then I saw them eating meat I'd assume that they either relapsed or decided to stop being a vegan. I wouldn't condemn them as liars or untrustworthy people. I'm not quick to judge people, like that.

...

What does vegan mean, anyway? Beyond the basic literal definition, I mean. A fundamentalist vegan will not consume honey or any animal products under any circumstances. Somebody who lives by the tenants of ethical veganism (to not inflict suffering on animals) may make exceptions when suffering is not implied by consumption...

I am a vegan (according to how I classify it), and I'm not (according to how you do). It doesn't matter how many times somebody insists that I'm not technically a vegan, according to the commonly accepted definition of the word... Do you go around interrogating homosexuals about their sexual history in order to determine whether or not they fit into your preconceived ideas of what a homosexual is? I mean, who cares really? If they want to identify as gay, that's up to them. I identify as vegan.

I also identify as Buddhist and Christian, even though I don't go to temple or church.
In the end, they're just words... and I don't give a fuck what the word police have to say about it.

What does Christian mean?
Do I have to be a fundamentalist to qualify?
Or is it different, somehow?


----------



## nuttynutskin

ForEverAfter said:


> I didn't mean any offense in that HL thread, and I had no idea who you were (or that you had posted stuff in my oyster thread) when I made that comment about your username...



I thought it was mussels? Either way I don't believe you.



ForEverAfter said:


> I'm not perfect, but I don't think I've discussed other unrelated threads, unless I'm defending myself and responding directly to attempts to discredit me / inflammatory comments about other threads. I certainly haven't attempted to discredit people in this thread by trolling through their post history and referencing other threads...



You're full of it. You were the first one to instigate me in that thread for no reason. When I fired back not only did you make another direct go at me regarding my Revelations thread, you also misquoted me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it...



ForEverAfter said:


> Coming from the guy saying that the world is coming to an end, as predicted by Revelations...
> And that there are eerie similarities between the four horsemen of the apocalypse and the modern world?
> 
> I'll continue eating my bean-curd nut sack (before the rapture strikes) if it's all the same to you.





ForEverAfter said:


> I'm going to buy a chicken in a couple of weeks, bond with it, and then decapitate it.
> My girlfriend is not happy about this, but it needs to be done.



Strong vegan... Trollolololol

Face it dude, you're a crackpot and self admitted liar. I feel sorry for anyone who takes you seriously.


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 





> Either way I don't believe you.



I don't care.



> You're full of it. You were the first one to instigate me in that thread for no reason. When I fired back you made another direct go at me regarding my Revelations thread. Don't dish it out if you can't take it...



In the HL thread, you told me to "get off the bath salts"... and I made one comment - a single sentence - about the Revelations thread, to put into perspective whether or not my mental health was (relatively) questionable... I have not, in this thread, or any other, trolled through somebody's post history and made such persistent efforts to universally discredit and insult them as you have here.

I'm not sure if you didn't believe me when I told you that I don't care.



> Face it dude, you're a... crackpot / self admitted liar.



I'm quite happy to film the decapitation and post it in this thread, if that will satisfy you... I'll write my username - ForEverAfter - on a card and chop off the chicken's head directly on top of it. I'm not a liar, any more than your average person is. I have a weird sense of humor. I'm a strange person. A crackpot? Maybe. But everybody lies. Surely, you must admit that. Those who say they don't lie are lying.



> I feel sorry for anyone who takes you seriously.



That's uncalled for. You feel sorry for my friends and family because they can differentiate between when I'm joking and when I'm being serious?



> Strong vegan.



I've contributed to the deaths of so many animals, at a distance. I want to experience one of them, close up. I want to know what I've been doing. I want to see it. I've been talking about doing this, with my girlfriend, for a couple of months now. She has insisted to not be present, during the execution... I'll be doing it in about two weeks. Let me know if you want me to film it, for this thread.


----------



## nuttynutskin

ForEverAfter said:


> I'm quite happy to film the decapitation and post it in this thread, if that will satisfy you... I'll write my username - ForEverAfter - on a card and chop off the chicken's head directly on top of it. I'm not a liar, any more than your average person is. I have a weird sense of humor. I'm a strange person. A crackpot? Maybe. But everybody lies. Surely, you must admit that. Those who say they don't lie are lying.



Oy vey... Will it satisfy me? Satisfy what? I don't care what you do. I've seen animals killed and butchered, I don't know what you think you would be trying to prove. Believe it or not I don't have anything against vegetarians or vegans, I just hate hypocrisy. If you're only vegan when it's convenient then I would argue that you don't have very much resolve and that indeed you aren't vegan, just like anyone else claiming to be something but not living it. And I still don't understand your need to hold onto your false terminology, like vegans are somehow morally superior to everyone else and you'd lose something special by calling yourself an omnivore, which you are. Seems pretty narcissistic really.


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 



You've been arguing with me about the word vegan for how many months? (3 / 4 months?)

As socko said, on the 10th of January, 2015:



			
				socko said:
			
		

> He's just not a strict, fundamentalist vegan. Nothing wrong with that. None of the Vegan Police who are complaining on here can do anything about it.



(Thanks, socko.)

...

And here is you, nutty, about 100 days ago:



> VEGANS DON'T EAT SHELLFISH... YOU'RE NOT VEGAN!!!



...

This is the OP from that thread, almost 6 months ago.



			
				me said:
			
		

> I'm on a raw food vegan diet. I don't consume processed food or any products with added sugar.
> Basically, a combination of: beans, sprouts, seeds, nuts, legumes, fruits, vegetables & fungi.
> I only drink water, freshly squeezed juice, and natural mineral water.
> 
> Previously, with this sort of diet, I'd take iron and b12 supplements. But, this time, I don't want to.
> I want to maintain a completely natural diet for a year.
> 
> I can't consume fortified cereals, because I'm gluten intolerant.
> And, I'm not comfortable with consuming soy.
> 
> So, my solution is: 6 oysters, every 6 days... *(Although technically not vegan, oysters aren't sentient.)*
> 
> My question is, I guess: is this enough B12?
> 
> Also: can I get away with consuming six times my recommended daily dose, every six days? (I assumed it would be okay to do this, because of weekly B12 supplements.) Or is it different with supplements? Do I need to consume B12 containing foods every day? What if I double the number of oysters and consume a dozen per week?
> 
> I apologize if this has already been covered. I couldn't find the specific answers I needed.
> 
> Thanks, in advance.
> -4ea



...



> I just hate hypocrisy. If you're only vegan when it's convenient then I would say that you don't have very much resolve and that indeed you aren't vegan



How many more months are you going to repeat this rather petty and inconsequential distinction?
We disagree about a _word_. Get over it, already. It's not the end of the fucking world.



> I don't know what you think you would be trying to prove.



That I'm not a liar.


----------



## nuttynutskin

Admits to lying, says they're not a liar...


----------



## ForEverAfter

*NSFW*: 



I'm not sure what you think I lied about.
And, lying once or twice doesn't make you a liar.

Can we continue this via PM?
People actually want to use this thread to discuss the topic.

That picture is pretty funny, by the way.
It reminds me of Stan's clone from an early South Park episode.








http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/15887869228/why-veganism-should-move-beyond-no-animal


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> yeah, that makes sense.  Absolutism when its convenient.  Argue a person to death and then change your position.



See, that's where I don't have a problem unlike some. I can't believe how so many are crawling and almost feel they have to apologise for a vegetarian diet because it offends the majority. So what, it's not going to hurt them and only does them good to have something to think about. 

But I don't exactly care about being socially correct so someone can't really get to me in that sense. Even if some of my lifestyle is extreme, who's to say I'm crazy and they're not the crazy ones? People are so afraid of social judgement, I don't get it. It's just amusing how a small minority choosing to live in a different way can rile up so many and make them feel uncomfortable. 

I mean, it's almost hilarious how even belonging to the vast majority or as good as 99% of our culture isn't enough for some. I wonder how much it really takes for some to feel socially accepted, but it would never occur to me to be aplogetic just because I've made a small effort to make some positive changes in the world.


----------



## ForEverAfter

It's weird. I feel bad for doing what I think is the right thing.
Like I go over to my parents house for dinner, and I always have to remind my mum that I'm vegan.
She doesn't like it. She doesn't think it's healthy. She wants me to eat meat for the rest of my life.
She has this look in her eyes, when we discuss it, that I can't quite put my finger on.
It's as if she's asking, "Do you think I'm a bad person?"
It's a little heart-breaking. Of course I don't judge her.
She is my mother.


----------



## Ninae

What happens a lot of the time is that people will beat someone down for distancing themselves from the common meat-diet, just to make sure they won't be able to patronise them in any way, so many end up acting apologetic for their choices. 

People also have all sorts of imaginative ways to argue it's actually less environmentally friendly, less ethical, and less healthy, for the same reason or to make themselves come out superior. When if the truth was really shone on these things that just wouldn't be possible, but ignorance is also a big part of it. 

But it's a good example of how things can be so twisted around in this world that, sometimes, if you're doing the opposite of the majority you're on the right track.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> See, that's where I don't have a problem unlike some. I can't believe how so many are crawling and almost feel they have to apologise for a vegetarian diet because it offends the majority. So what, it's not going to hurt them and only does them good to have something to think about.




Would you like other people to be vegetarian? Because I would. I know that adopting a hard-line which contains implicit shaming and guilting of opponents has a repelling effect. In this thread those who have presented unwavering and adamant views have only increased opposition to them. If you want people to adopt (or just accept) this lifestyle, smacking them over the head with it is detrimental. Being understanding and pragmatic instead of idealistic can actually change things, but insisting that you are right and they are wrong just furthers the divide and damages the cause. 

I would be really cautious about adopting a hard-line. People respond badly to that. More to the point, I don't want to be associated with something that has a negative effect on animals, and I think that trying to prove your moral superiority as a vegan pushes people away from it, leading to the negative effect we wish to avoid. That is not good for the earth or animals. Monochromatic ideals become a deterrent. 

This issue should be bigger then the ego. You may dislike carnivorous practise, in which case the best thing to do is try and make veganism/vegetarianism both appealing and viable; or, at least, make it seem LESS unappealing. 

So its actually a really good idea to be understanding. The only reason you would shame or guilt-trip someone is if you didn't want them to be a vegetarian.  



> People are so afraid of social judgement, I don't get it. It's just amusing how a small minority choosing to live in a different way can rile up so many and make them feel uncomfortable.



You seem to regularly ascribe the wrong motivations to things. Avoiding social judgement is unimportant, but damaging your own good cause is. The unwavering stance you (and some others) present seems to repel people.


----------



## Ninae

I leave non-vegetarians alone, I'm just not going to let them shame or guilt me, or be apologetic to them. But when it comes to spreading things like vegeterianism idealism tend to be more effective as it can be contagious, and people usually need an emotional motivation to change the way they live.


----------



## Journyman16

@FEA - have you thought maybe the problem is 'identifying' itself? We run into trouble when we place ourselves in a category and then breach the usual boundaries of that category. e.g. I'm a ku klux klan believer... have you met my black wife? :D

Saying "I am... (_anything_)" is problematic because that is not all we are. We might be a truckie but do ballet, or a Democrat and believe in corporate business (think I have that right - US politics is SO confusing :D) Imagine going into a gay bar and proclaiming your gayness and then telling people you'd never have sex with a guy? Imagine their reaction - it's a fairly typical one for groups where someone comes along and claims to be a member but breaches the fundamental tenets of membership.


----------



## ForEverAfter

^Yeah, that's why I say I am but I'm not.
I don't really cling onto terms absolutely.

That's what I was saying about gay people.
I know numerous gay guys who have had sex with women in the past.
Even guys who've been married for years, and had kids. Then said they're gay.
My girlfriend's uncle came out when he was like 40-50 years old.
I used to think, "that doesn't make sense. he must be bisexual."
And argue, "otherwise, how could they have had kids?"
But, really, it's not for me to say.

I think we need to identify, regardless of whether or not those identities are perfect.
A gay guy might say he has bisexual / heterosexual tendencies, on rare occasions.
But, for the most part, he's gay.

Similarly, if somebody says they're black and they've obviously got a bit of something else in their ancestry, I don't challenge them.
Maybe they're fifteen sixteenths black, or thirty-one thirty-seconds black, but that doesn't mean they have to give you the fractions.
They're close enough to black, that it doesn't matter.

I only started eating wild game after reading, in this thread, that kangaroo consumption isn't ethically questionable... Like willow said, I think it's important to do the right thing rather than just being a fundamentalist. As I said earlier, it flat out doesn't make sense to me to have an absolute no-animal-product stance, when consumption of certain animal products does not imply mistreatment.


----------



## Journyman16

Kangaroo is YUMMY!. And the meat is excellent for us. Almost all the fat is in the tail which makes excellent soup.

OS people get upset about us culling the roos, but they are almost impossible to kill out or endanger. A female can have up to 4 joeys sitting in her pouch, all hibernating for the duration - when the rains come or they find food, she can bear them one at a time, (which is a neat biological trick if you think about it - how does she trigger 1 into growth and not the other 3?) bringing up 4 in a few months.

So when roos get at crops, there tends to be population explosions, then a die back when we harvest.

Mind you I wish I'd had a video of the missus when I first cooked her a meal of roo and she thought it great... until I told her what it was. She loves it but the initial idea of eating one... :D


----------



## Boupstarnm

In my opinion making a choice like being vegan or vegetarian is a conscious way to acknowledge and off set some of our unavoidable lifestyle choices. Like automobiles, using drugs, smoking cigarettes or being a lazy bum.

It's like saying to the universe "hey at least I've committed to something to better this place".

Plus you can have it be your thing. "I'd be an average person with nothing exceptional but I'm a vegan so now I'm different"...on some level for some people.


----------



## nuttynutskin

Idk... Since Forever hid where I said this along with a bunch of other stuff, I will say that I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans (that actually practice what they preach). I think people become vegetarian for different reasons. Sure some probably do it to feel superior against meat eaters but I would guess the majority do it for either dietary or ethical reasons, or a combination and that's fine. I think people can be healthy on a vegetarian diet, vegan I'm not so sure, but obviously people are free to eat what they want to eat. My main gripe is that some vegetarians don't go about their diet in a healthy way. If you take meat or other animal products out of your diet you still need to find how you're going to get your protein and other nutrients that you're missing. A lot of people don't seem to do this and it results in an unbalanced diet. But as I already pretty much said, people gonna eat what people gonna eat.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I've definitely met people who're way too proud of their dietary choices and bring it up, out of context, way too often.
They think people will look at them differently, knowing that they belong to a select group of people.
But they're a minority, I think, and they tend to be the fundamentalists (from my experience).
Personally, I avoid talking about it in most situations.

I remember this guy I met when I was working on a short film.
He was a vegan hippy type, with about as much meat on him as a skeleton.
I wasn't a vegan back then. Somehow the topic of honey came up, I've forgotten how...
And, as soon as he realized I was unaware that honey was an animal product, his eyes lit up.
It was like he lived for those moments... like he was blowing people's minds.
I found it a little off-putting.



> In my opinion making a choice like being vegan or vegetarian is a conscious way to acknowledge and off set some of our unavoidable lifestyle choices. Like automobiles, using drugs, smoking cigarettes or being a lazy bum.
> 
> It's like saying to the universe "hey at least I've committed to something to better this place".



You have to start somewhere and not consuming animal products is a good entry position.
I don't agree that using drugs or being lazy should be included in this list.
Those acts don't cause any harm to the environment.
I intend to stop driving, altogether, at some point.
I'm going to build an eco-friendly house soon.
I'm doing what I can afford to, ATM.

It doesn't make much sense, to me, to say, "There's so much harm we're contributing, so what's the point (of reducing it)?"
We should be saying, "There's so much harm we're contributing, we've got to do everything we can do to stop it!"
It's quite possible, within our lifetimes, to transition to state of minimal harm (relative to how we're living now).
We then pass those values onto our children and, hopefully, our species survives a bit longer.



> If you take meat or other animal products out of your diet you still need to find how you're going to get your protein and other nutrients that you're missing. A lot of people don't seem to do this and it results in an unbalanced diet.



Don't most non-vegetarians / non-vegans have unhealthy diets also?
I see a lot of people I know eating way too much pasta, too much meat, too much sugar.
You can't say that a vegan diet isn't healthy any more than you can that a meat-inclusive diet is healthy.
Both of them can be perfectly healthy, it's just more difficult with veganism to find a good balance initially.



> Forever hid where I said this along with a bunch of other stuff



How can I hide something that you've said?


----------



## nuttynutskin

ForEverAfter said:


> We then pass those values onto our children and, hopefully, our species survives a bit longer.



If you want a bunch of weakling kids I guess... As far as survival tho, meat eaters will definitely be at the top of the chain.



ForEverAfter said:


> Don't most non-vegetarians / non-vegans have unhealthy diets also?
> I see a lot of people I know eating way too much pasta, too much meat, too much sugar.
> You can't say that a vegan diet isn't healthy any more than you can that a meat-inclusive diet is healthy.



I'm pretty sure there's a name for the type of argument you're using.



ForEverAfter said:


> Both of them can be perfectly healthy, it's just more difficult with veganism to find a good balance initially.



I've yet to see a healthy looking vegan. Maybe it can be done, but I've never seen it.



ForEverAfter said:


> How can I hide something that you've said?



With all the stupid NSFW tags you put on my replies.


----------



## Xorkoth

nuttynutskin said:


> Idk... Since Forever hid where I said this along with a bunch of other stuff, I will say that I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans (that actually practice what they preach). I think people become vegetarian for different reasons. Sure some probably do it to feel superior against meat eaters but I would guess the majority do it for either dietary or ethical reasons, or a combination and that's fine. I think people can be healthy on a vegetarian diet, vegan I'm not so sure, but obviously people are free to eat what they want to eat. My main gripe is that some vegetarians don't go about their diet in a healthy way. If you take meat or other animal products out of your diet you still need to find how you're going to get your protein and other nutrients that you're missing. A lot of people don't seem to do this and it results in an unbalanced diet. But as I already pretty much said, people gonna eat what people gonna eat.



Why is it that you have a problem with someone who identifies as something and then doesn't always follow that precisely?  I mean, unless that person is trying to pass judgment on people not following the same way.  I've been following and participating in this thread the whole time and I haven't seen this from FEA... he's stated that he believes it's an ethical choice, but that doesn't imply judgment... it implies it's why he does it, the same as any other ethical belief that leads to a choice in anyone.


----------



## ebola?

nutty said:
			
		

> I've yet to see a healthy looking vegan. Maybe it can be done, but I've never seen it.



Meh...I was totally fine for 7 years (actually, a training endurance athlete, having completed a couple hundred mile bike rides with 6.5k+ ft. of cumulative elevation gain).  How many unhealthy vegans did you meet?  Were their diets centered around pasta and fries?



> If you want a bunch of weakling kids I guess... As far as survival tho, meat eaters will definitely be at the top of the chain.



Huh?  "Survival" these days means delaying the onset of heart disease and cancer as much as possible.  The days of other apex-predators being relevant threats are thousands of years behind us.



> With all the stupid NSFW tags you put on my replies.



It's to minimize the visual footprint of off-topic squabbling, and I appreciate it.

ebola


----------



## socko

nuttynutskin said:


> I've yet to see a healthy looking vegan. Maybe it can be done, but I've never seen it.


There are some famous professional athletes who are vegan. Seeing is believing.  
source http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/going-vegan-in-the-nfl-20130123


> Four months after Arian Foster tweeted that he had stopped eating meat, eggs, and all other animal foods, the Houston Texans running back was grinding out more yards on the field than nearly any other player in the NFL. By early November, he had amassed 168 carries – for 659 yards – and nine touchdowns.
> 
> Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/going-vegan-in-the-nfl-20130123#ixzz3XaH0cV7e
> Follow us: @mensjournal on Twitter | MensJournal on Facebook


from http://www.greatveganathletes.com/


> Alister Gardner, vegan trail runner2012 saw Alister make an impact on the international trail running world with a course record and some impressive placings at tough events.  The Canadian represents his country at mountain running and is also taking on marathons.


----------



## Journyman16

I've seen some of those vegans who don't know what they are doing - worst was a couple who looked like they'd blow away in a slight breeze and they had kids that looked like they'd come from Auschwitz. I wanted to report them to DHS for cruelty to their kids. Both children were about 5 years older than they looked.

But I've seen many people on a 'normal' diet as well, usually at the opposite extreme, being so fat they can barely walk and with kids probably double the weight they should be - I wanted to report them as well.

There are definitely healthy meat diets - a roadie for the Grateful Dead ate protein and fats almost exclusive, reducing carbs as close to 0 as he could get and at 80 years old he looked maybe 45. There's a type of diet called ketogenic that is supposed to kill off cancer - the idea being healthy cells can use the ketosis products (& no, you don't do it to the extent the body is eating itself :D) while cancerous ones require sugars.

It's a matter I think of ensuring the quality of your food, and that you fuel your body with what it needs. Some things are better from plants and others are better from meats. e.g. iron from animals is much more easily absorbed than from plants. But whichever path you take, it takes knowledge and awareness to make sure everything is in proportion and nothing is lacking.


----------



## Erikmen

Journyman16 said:


> I've seen some of those vegans who don't know what they are doing - worst was a couple who looked like they'd blow away in a slight breeze and they had kids that looked like they'd come from Auschwitz. I wanted to report them to DHS for cruelty to their kids. Both children were about 5 years older than they looked.
> 
> It's a matter I think of ensuring the quality of your food, and that you fuel your body with what it needs. Some things are better from plants and others are better from meats. e.g. iron from animals is much more easily absorbed than from plants. But whichever path you take, it takes knowledge and awareness to make sure everything is in proportion and nothing is lacking.



With that I agree totally!


----------



## methamaniac

Wow, this thread still going strong.....
I find fruits and vegetables  that look like the body part/organ they are good for very interesting. 
Nothing to do with thread really,
just find it interesting.☺


----------



## nuttynutskin

Erikmen said:


> With that I agree totally!



Yeah I'll second that. That's probably the most coherent post I've seen since joining this thread.



methamaniac said:


> I find fruits and vegetables  that look like the body part/organ they are good for very interesting.



Are you one of those guys that won't eat bananas or zucchini?


----------



## methamaniac

nuttynutskin said:


> Are you one of those guys that won't eat bananas or zucchini?



Dang Nutskin,  it ain't all about the little brain and one- eyed monster.?
Speaking of the eye and brain......
Cut a carrot in half, and it looks just like an eye;
and a walnut like a brain.
Carrots great for eyes.....
Walnuts great for brain......
More what I was getting at.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Would you like other people to be vegetarian? Because I would. I know that adopting a hard-line which contains implicit shaming and guilting of opponents has a repelling effect. In this thread those who have presented unwavering and adamant views have only increased opposition to them. If you want people to adopt (or just accept) this lifestyle, smacking them over the head with it is detrimental. Being understanding and pragmatic instead of idealistic can actually change things, but insisting that you are right and they are wrong just furthers the divide and damages the cause.
> 
> I would be really cautious about adopting a hard-line. People respond badly to that. More to the point, I don't want to be associated with something that has a negative effect on animals, and I think that trying to prove your moral superiority as a vegan pushes people away from it, leading to the negative effect we wish to avoid. That is not good for the earth or animals. Monochromatic ideals become a deterrent.
> 
> This issue should be bigger then the ego. You may dislike carnivorous practise, in which case the best thing to do is try and make veganism/vegetarianism both appealing and viable; or, at least, make it seem LESS unappealing.
> 
> So its actually a really good idea to be understanding. The only reason you would shame or guilt-trip someone is if you didn't want them to be a vegetarian.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to regularly ascribe the wrong motivations to things. Avoiding social judgement is unimportant, but damaging your own good cause is. The unwavering stance you (and some others) present seems to repel people.



Amen.  I think I may be getting through to some of you people, because this has pretty much been my stance from day one.


----------



## swilow

^Ok as much as I like you agreeing with me I can't recall you saying anything similar to that...


----------



## Erikmen

The problem with these vegans start when children start to lose weight and doctors ask, what are you doing?
It happened to my neighbor. She looks sick and her children too.


----------



## ebola?

Erik said:
			
		

> The problem with these vegans start when children start to lose weight and doctors ask, what are you doing?



I think that this is more an issue of failing to provide children with adequate nutrition in general than failure to provide children with animal products.  All similar widely publicized cases I've seen thus far involve the parents doing something fucked up, like feeding their kid only unpasteurized apple juice, providing them with half their daily necessary calories, etc.  This is an issue with negligent parents, not vegan children.

ebola


----------



## swilow

ebola? said:


> I think that this is more an issue of failing to provide children with adequate nutrition in general than failure to provide children with animal products.  All similar widely publicized cases I've seen thus far involve the parents doing something fucked up, like feeding their kid only unpasteurized apple juice, providing them with half their daily necessary calories, etc.  This is an issue with negligent parents, not vegan children.
> 
> ebola



Or: Vegans can be neglectful idiots who shouldn't have children too. 

We've been through this. Its possible to feed children aqequately on a vegetarian/vegan diet. I am not going to feed my children vegan food, though I will focus on vegetarian food. I'll probably include fish and I might include chicken. I do believe that this is an important and positive ideal, and will certainly encourage it, but I will encourage decision making and thinking for oneself moreso.


----------



## Journyman16

methamaniac said:


> Dang Nutskin,  it ain't all about the little brain and one- eyed monster.
> Speaking of the eye and brain......
> Cut a carrot in half, and it looks just like an eye;
> and a walnut like a brain.
> Carrots great for eyes.....
> Walnuts great for brain......
> More what I was getting at.


You must have a strange version of an eye. 

How do you feel about eating mussels? :D Is it sexual for you? :D


----------



## Journyman16

Yep... It isn't about WHICH diet, it is about what is healthy. Lots of carrots is about as healthy as lots of McBurgers, unless you balance it out.


----------



## ebola?

swillow said:
			
		

> I am not going to feed my children vegan food, though I will focus on vegetarian food. I'll probably include fish and I might include chicken. I do believe that this is an important and positive ideal, and will certainly encourage it, but I will encourage decision making and thinking for oneself moreso.



Since I don't plan on having children, this is a relative non-issue for me that I haven't put much thought into.  Still, I think I'd give my kid only vegetarian food, in part because I literally don't know how to cook meat (I understand it's usually pretty simple, as you just wait for it to turn brown ).  The kid's mother could obviously feed them what she wants, and they could obviously get whatever they want at restaurants.

It's an interesting issue, as I don't think that there's any real neutral ground, as is the case with religion.  Just as parents endeavor to impart _some_ worldview* (and indeed usually some cosmology) to their children, they must also give their children a particular diet.

*I was raised agnostic, and it's not like my parents responded to spiritual questions with "I don't know.  End of discussion."  It was more, "I don't know.  A lot of people think x.  A lot think y.  My best guess is z because a, b, and c (z would be different between my two parents)."  This wasn't neutral but rather a particular approach to the matter.

ebola


----------



## Erikmen

willow11 said:


> We've been through this. Its possible to feed children aqequately on a vegetarian/vegan diet. I am not going to feed my children vegan food, though I will focus on vegetarian food. I'll probably include fish and I might include chicken. I do believe that this is an important and positive ideal, and will certainly encourage it, but I will encourage decision making and thinking for oneself moreso.



I like the way you put it. I have kids, one is already much older. And you have to add fish and chicken and teach them about vegetarian food. Moderation in everything.
Most Importantly, they learned to make decisions and act independently. They are very healthy indeed.


----------



## nuttynutskin

Erikmen said:


> The problem with these vegans start when children start to lose weight and doctors ask, what are you doing?
> It happened to my neighbor. She looks sick and her children too.



To a lesser extent, I'd personally lump that in with those christian science idiots that believe in prayer to cure illnesses and don't take their kids to the doctor. I don't care if full grown adults choose to malnourish themselves, but I have zero tolerance when it comes to parents pushing their unhealthy (in this case dietary) beliefs on their children. The same could be argued with parents that feed their children tons of junk food and I'm equally against that.


----------



## methamaniac

Journyman16 said:


> You must have a strange version of an eye.



*Peep this *?

http://www.pakwheels.com/forums/att...ts-fruits-human-body-1_z5d_pakwheels-com-.jpg

https://wholefoodconsciousness.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/eye-carrot.jpg?w=261&h=115&crop=1



			
				Jman said:
			
		

> How do you feel about eating mussels? :D Is it sexual for you? :D


Woudn't know, don't eat them. 
Pretty sure they aren't a fruit or vegetable  either :D
I have heard eating mussels get the love muscles going tho


----------



## swilow

Journyman16 said:


> You must have a strange version of an eye.



Imagine mine:

*NSFW*: 











Anyhow, enough about anthropomorphic vegetables. Let's get back to the true issue, which is how lucky god is that he didn't choose the octopus to be the master species.


----------



## spacejunk

willow11 said:


> Imagine mine:
> 
> *NSFW*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, enough about anthropomorphic vegetables. Let's get back to the true issue, which is how lucky god is that he didn't choose the octopus to be the master species.



Damn humourless vegans!


----------



## methamaniac

Willow said:
			
		

> Anyhow, enough about anthropomorphic vegetables. Let's get back to the true issue, which is how lucky god is that he didn't choose the octopus to be the master species.



Oh my good friend Willow, 
never miss an opportunity  to take a shot at a God that you are sure doesn't exist, right?☺ 
Speaking of *Octopuses* and *EYES*.....
Isn't it amazing how your deity/entity   'random blind chance' was able to build an uncannily  similar (basically identical in Squid) camera eye *Independently*  in cephalopods/octopuses and humans/vertabrates ( oh and let's not leave out Cnadaria).
We won't get into other examples of independently evolved image forming eyes right now.(let's just say there's a bunch)
Truly magical this mysterious force of yours is I tell ya.......truly magical!


----------



## swilow

^I responded to you making creative claims. I didn't bring up god and carrots. That was you.


----------



## ebola?

methmaniac said:
			
		

> never miss an opportunity to take a shot at a God that you are sure doesn't exist, right?☺



I don't think I even understand how one could interpret that lighthearted joke as a slight against god.  I'm...not even sure what set of assumptions would cultivate that particular interpretive approach.

ebola


----------



## methamaniac

willow11 said:


> ^I responded to you making creative claims. I didn't bring up god and carrots. That was you.


Guilty on the carrots........
I'm pretty positive you invited God into the discussion tho (and octopuses ☺) .......
Either way, I'm truly  not offended/bothered in any respect by your comment/joke .I'm not sure I really even get it either way (maybe you could explain it). The "shot" comment was a really more a joke hence the smiley....

 I honestly don't see how/why you would be bothered by my comments (not saying you are, and if your not everything all good )
Pretty big coinkydink on the convergent evo of the eye tho, no?


----------



## swilow

ebola? said:


> I'm...not even sure what set of assumptions would cultivate that particular interpretive approach.
> 
> ebola



I don't know, I think the mind that see's eyes in carrots can find insult easily enough.

But I don't think he was insulted or anything 



methamaniac said:


> Guilty on the carrots........
> I'm pretty positive you invited God into the discussion tho (and octopuses ☺) .......



I admit to introducing our Cephalopodian brothers, but twas, in fact, you who introduced god by making allusions to intelligent design evidenced (apparently) by the vague resemblance between a bisected carrot and a human eye. I just don't.... well, you know what I think about it.



> Either way, I'm truly  not offended/bothered in any respect by your comment/joke .I'm not sure I really even get it either way (maybe you could explain it). The "shot" comment was a really more a joke hence the smiley....



Yeah, I knew that you weren't offended by it. I didn't intend you to be offended; I just couldn't resist  I like what you contribute here and, I will admit, I am looking at aspects of evolution and the universe in a slightly more critical way, less accepting of the status-quo. I attribute that to you, amongst others, and I appreciate anything that benefits me....  The last thing I want to do is offend. Well, the second last. 

My point- what was it?- the octopus has an odd shaped eye. I was more pointing meekly to the absurdity of claiming that god speaks to us through both bible-verse and the geometry of vegetation.

I think that octopi eyes would also benefit from vitamin A in carrot. Yet carrots are apparently shaped like human eyes. If the most-advanced species was a type of octopus, I wonder how god would have encoded that into terrestrial flora. 

In other words, on a planet ruled by octopi, what the fuck do carrots look like? (I guarantee you that that sentence has never before been uttered in the entire universe :D)



> I honestly don't see how/why you would be bothered by my comments (not saying you are, and if your not everything all good )
> Pretty big coinkydink on the convergent evo of the eye tho, no?



I wasn't at all bothered  I just find the idea of intelligent design to be quite ridiculous and not worth much more then a (pretty lame) joke. 

It was definitely funnier then my carrot/erect picture tho


----------



## methamaniac

willow said:
			
		

> I admit to introducing our Cephalopodian brothers, but twas, in fact, you who introduced god by making allusions to intelligent design evidenced (apparently) by the vague resemblance between a bisected carrot and a human eye. I just don't.... well, you know what I think about it





			
				ME said:
			
		

> Wow, this thread still going strong.....
> I find fruits and vegetables that look like the body part/organ they are good for very interesting.
> Nothing to do with thread really,
> just find it interesting.☺



How is this introducing God? I don't think God designed  it so when viewed the bisection of a carrot would look like an eye. (I'm not ruling out that he could've  designed the eye to look like the bisection of a carrot tho) ?
lulz... that was your incorrect assumption.
I got a pamphlet  from a dietitian  a few years back that had that (and other examples) on it.
I can't help I see the resemblance 



willow11 said:


> But I don't think he was insulted or anything


Now this assumption is 100% correct 





			
				willow said:
			
		

> Yeah, I knew that you weren't offended by it. I didn't intend you to be offended; I just couldn't resist  I like what you contribute here and, I will admit, I am looking at aspects of evolution and the universe in a slightly more critical way, less accepting of the status-quo. I attribute that to you, amongst others, and I appreciate anything that benefits me....  The last thing I want to do is offend. Well, the second last.


Ty and Likewise......
As far as the status quo, you should question it in respect. Behind closed doors scientist know the neo-darwinian model is wrong, but will not publicly admit it until they have another model to replace it.
We barely understand DNA/human genome, and we are finding out they are a lot more "intelligent" than we could imagine. 



			
				willow said:
			
		

> My point- what was it?- the octopus has an odd shaped eye. I was more pointing meekly to the absurdity of claiming that god speaks to us through both bible-verse and the geometry of vegetation.


Ah ha......it was a shot at God and those that believe in the bible☺
(As well as those that believe in the revelation of geometric vegetation )






			
				Willow said:
			
		

> I wasn't at all bothered  I just find the idea of intelligent design to be quite ridiculous and not worth much more then a (pretty lame) joke.


I find the idea of a random process creating a  4-bit code (with highly specified information) that can write, edit, transcribe, and execute itself to be in the category of absurd......but hey, we can agreee to disagree on that one friend ☺



			
				WILLOW said:
			
		

> It was definitely funnier then my carrot/erect picture tho


agreed, carrot picture much funnnier!


----------



## Erikmen

nuttynutskin said:


> To a lesser extent, I'd personally lump that in with those christian science idiots that believe in prayer to cure illnesses and don't take their kids to the doctor. I don't care if full grown adults choose to malnourish themselves, but I have zero tolerance when it comes to parents pushing their unhealthy (in this case dietary) beliefs on their children. The same could be argued with parents that feed their children tons of junk food and I'm equally against that.



I fully agree with that!


----------



## Ninae

Being a Vegan: The easy way.


----------



## methamaniac

^
That's the before they tried meat  pic........
Here's the after


----------



## Ninae

It's amazing how many paintings of poppies there are. I was just watching something on television and the centre piece on the wall was a beautiful tapestry of a flower garden with poppies up at the front and I have to say I found it bit distracting (even though I've done much more Kratom than true opiates).


----------



## Erikmen

Ninae said:


> Being a Vegan: The easy way.



Nice! Vakker


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> ^Ok as much as I like you agreeing with me I can't recall you saying anything similar to that...



yes, basically I said its a beautiful thing until people start acting smug about it and try to push it on people by making it a moral high horse.   I said that instead of trying to persuade people to only eat vegetables that it would be more effective to develop technology that would eliminate the need to kill our food.  That we could eventually grow meat in labs or find some other alternative.  I also related my stance(influenced by Taoism) that one ought to focus on how they themselves ought to live and let the world work itself out. Its my nature to empathize, but not to the point to where I feel my life is too contrived. 


  I embrace the suffering and unfairness of the world, because it will lead to progress.  I don't need to be one that cuts through the current to tame the world.  I would rather ride the waves and admire the whole scene in all its beauty.   Everything has its place, and we can only live the role we were born to live.  There is no changing your fate.  If you changed something about your life, its because you are who you are which is only because the world made you that way in merely being what it is.  I love the role we play in this world, and I have faith that no matter what we do, we were meant to do it, and it will be beautiful to me no matter what happens.


  We could create a robot civilization that destroyed humanity but spread itself and a new form of life across the galaxy.   I'd proud to be a part of it.  Whatever the future holds, I can only imagined being awed by it and to be grateful to have such a place in this vast existence in which I can survey things with such admiration for everything the world is and such faith in its greatness that being a part of it fills me with appreciation.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> I embrace the suffering and unfairness of the world, because it will lead to progress.  I don't need to be one that cuts through the current to tame the world.  I would rather ride the waves and admire the whole scene in all its beauty.   Everything has its place, and we can only live the role we were born to live.  There is no changing your fate.  If you changed something about your life, its because you are who you are which is only because the world made you that way in merely being what it is.  I love the role we play in this world, and I have faith that no matter what we do, we were meant to do it, and it will be beautiful to me no matter what happens.



The human ability to rationalise is truly amazing.


----------



## ForEverAfter

What turk said was well articulated and I agree with him 100%...
Everything and everyone has a function.

His is no more or less important than yours or mine...

...

Having said that:



			
				turk said:
			
		

> I said its a beautiful thing until people start acting smug about it and try to push it on people by making it a moral high horse.



You acted worse than any so called smug person in this thread. Own it. It's not the end of the world. It was your place to do so. It served a small function, for you to insult people, whatever that function (or functions) happen/s to be...



> instead of trying to persuade people to only eat vegetables that it would be more effective to develop technology that would eliminate the need to kill our food.



If everything has it's place, then surely you must understand that trying to persuade people to be vegetarian also has it's place.
Perhaps it is your place, or somebody else's, to react to the vegetarian movement and create a more viable solution.
But we still have our place, as you have yours, don't we?

I really liked what Ninae quoted, from you.
You have somewhat of a more balanced perspective than the average militant vegetarian.
But, it needs a bit of reworking here and there. Don't let shit get to you. Don't insult people.
You could argue that it is your place to insult people. But, I think it _was_.
If you disagree with something, don't allow it to make you less of a person.

Stop the conflict with willow, already.
You're better than that.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> I embrace the suffering and unfairness of the world, because it will lead to progress.  I don't need to be one that cuts through the current to tame the world.  I would rather ride the waves and admire the whole scene in all its beauty.   Everything has its place, and we can only live the role we were born to live.  There is no changing your fate.  If you changed something about your life, its because you are who you are which is only because the world made you that way in merely being what it is.  I love the role we play in this world, and I have faith that no matter what we do, we were meant to do it, and it will be beautiful to me no matter what happens.



My question to that would be from where does this fate/destiny/role emanate? Fate implies structure and design. To be honest, life on earth doesn't not really seemed planned and purposeful. It seems whimsical, arbitrary, chaotic. I can't really see any signs of fate or defined 'role' in my own life, so I wonder if such is another faithe based belief. I wonder if such a view is positive. Does believing in fate or destiny lead us to learned helplessness? I could see that happening... I think you make your own fate. That could be an illusion but its convincing enough for me. I think that being alive at all, you have already met the extent of your fate. 

I'm not exactly sure how this connects to the topic at hand, unless you are talking about animals "role" as food for humans...?


----------



## ForEverAfter

It is part of your function to not see that you have one.


----------



## Ninae

The people who post on this board are impossibly different. There aren't even cliques formed as there aren't any with enough in common. Although I think that's for the best.


----------



## drug_mentor

Forgive me if I am repeating questions that have already been asked or discussed, I did not read all the way through this thread (or anywhere close).

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, never have been, and the odds of me becoming one are quite slim. Despite this, I am fully prepared to acknowledge that factory farming is unethical, and as a meat eater who sources his meat from the supermarket, there is no question that I am contributing to this problem.

I am curious if many people who identify as vegetarian or vegan would have a problem with eating the flesh of an animal that was killed humanely, like one that was hunted and killed quickly with a clean shot? If it makes anyone feel better, this could be a deer or a kangaroo that was local to an area where deer/kangaroo populations were above what the environment could sustain, and it would almost certainly have died a more painful death due to starvation, had it not been culled.

Mainly, I want to know whether peoples objection to consumption of animal flesh derives from an objection to factory farming or meat eating in general? Despite my hypocrisy, I can largely sympathise with the former position, but I have trouble understanding the latter. 

Willow11, in your OP you link to the 'deep ecology' philosophy and allude to the fact it has influenced your current diet. I did not have time to read extensively about deep ecology tonight, but skimming over the link you provided it suggests that even plants are believed to have interests and, generally, beings with interests are regarded to have rights.

If even plants have interests (and therefore rights), then is it merely a matter of stringency of rights that makes it alright to violate a plants right to life, but not a cows? If not, I can't see where humans are supposed to get their sustenance from, because consuming any being one had to kill would be impermissible. If it is merely a matter of stringency, then couldn't it be argued that the nature of human experience is likely to cause humans to notice and relate to the interests of other mammals, and the idea that mammals have greater interests than plants could very plausibly be derived from our mammalian bias? If that is the case, it could be argued that consuming the flesh of some mammals may not be more unethical than consuming plant matter.

Furthermore, if plants have interests, and by extension some minimum basic rights, but these rights are not stringent enough to prevent their consumption by humans. Is it really unfair to suppose that some animals rights are not stringent enough to warrant humans abstaining from consuming their flesh?

A plant might have less interests than a cow, but it also feeds substantially less people. Surely some sort of concept that would take different beings levels of self-interest and use this to assign each being rights of varying stringency would have to acknowledge that the amount of interests or preferences that are satisfied in ending that beings life for consumption would have to be a factor in whether it is morally permissible to do so.


----------



## murphythecat

fate and destiny are just words without much logic behind. like a lot of words in our language, they create and invent others realities that has nothing to do with the one we really live in. 





willow11 said:


> My question to that would be from where does this fate/destiny/role emanate? Fate implies structure and design. To be honest, life on earth doesn't not really seemed planned and purposeful. It seems whimsical, arbitrary, chaotic. I can't really see any signs of fate or defined 'role' in my own life, so I wonder if such is another faithe based belief. I wonder if such a view is positive. Does believing in fate or destiny lead us to learned helplessness? I could see that happening... I think you make your own fate. That could be an illusion but its convincing enough for me. I think that being alive at all, you have already met the extent of your fate.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how this connects to the topic at hand, unless you are talking about animals "role" as food for humans...?


----------



## ForEverAfter

I disagree. There is a lot of logic supporting the idea of fate/destiny. I couldn't be bothered having another long pointless discussion on P&S, so you're just going to have to take my word for it. So, I'll just say this: in the absence of free will, there is only destiny; you might be loading the word so that it means something else... Then again, maybe you believe in free will... in which case, like I said, I couldn't be bothered having a discussion. Free will is illogical... As for how all this pertains to the topic at hand, I think it's rather obvious. Turk said it perfectly, in the first place. There are people who are destined to eat meat, regardless of whether or not we're starting to head away from it as a species. They shouldn't be made to feel bad for doing so, if nothing is gained. Similarly (and I'm not equating anything) murderers should understand that they are victims of fate. Any one of us could be a murderer. We pat ourselves on the back for being delivered (seemingly randomly) to the so-called ethical high-ground that we preach from, but we could have - quite as easily - been delivered to the other side... And, we demonize those who've had less fortunate circumstances. We say they're bad people. But they have a function. Murder has a function. They're not bad, they're _essential_. No more or less essential than any of us, really. I feel sorry for victims of fate. To return to the context of the vegetarian discussion, I feel sorry for those who acknowledge that the meat industry is wrong but do not act on it. And, I wonder: what is the point of preaching from our ethical high-ground when we're only causing pain? There have been quite a lot of people object to "smugness" on this thread. But, that isn't the right word. After thinking about it for some time, I think we're - inadvertently - "rubbing their faces in it". They're not going to change, we're just judging them for who they are and - by implication - congratulating ourselves. There is a function to this - there is a function to promoting vegetarianism - but, I don't want to be part of it anymore. I don't want to be an activist. There is nothing wrong with leaving the world, as it is. Change will exist without me. I've spent enough time, over the past couple of months, beating my head against a wall (only to mock the wall for remaining upright). In the end, I don't think this thread has accomplished anything. Despite how much we attempt to justify our attempts to enact change (if, indeed, that's what they were), we aren't enacting change. The only thing we're doing is upsetting people. And, upset people are insulting sometimes. Upset people get worked up. So, what do we do? We insult them back. We discredit them. We work them up even more. Then we act like they're being even crazier. This machine - Bluelight - is broken. People cannot hear what they don't want to (read: are destined not to) hear. This thread has helped me realize the futility of threads/discussions like this. You can't convince a shark not to attack dolphins. Some people are sharks. And, there's nothing wrong with that. I like sharks.


----------



## swilow

Okay. I think its pointless to make a definite statement and then refuse to discuss it. You may as well use a blog. I wish you did want to discuss this though, but your call brother 



			
				Foreverafter said:
			
		

> As for how all this pertains to the topic at hand, I think it's rather obvious. Turk said it perfectly, in the first place. There are people who are destined to eat meat, regardless of whether or not we're starting to head away from it as a species. They shouldn't be made to feel bad for doing so, if nothing is gained. Similarly (and I'm not equating anything) murderers should understand that they are victims of fate. Any one of us could be a murderer. We pat ourselves on the back for being delivered (seemingly randomly) to the so-called ethical high-ground that we preach from, but we could have - quite as easily - been delivered to the other side... And, we demonize those who've had less fortunate circumstances. We say they're bad people.



I don't think people who eat meat are bad people. That would be a horrible underestimation of billions of people I won't ever know. I think they might be mistaken in the CHOICE they have made, but it very well could be me that's mistaken. I only wanted to hear other peoples opinions to check whether I might be wrong or not. Results have been inconclusive.



> But they have a function. Murder has a function. They're not bad, they're _essential_. No more or less essential than any of us, really. I feel sorry for victims of fate. To return to the context of the vegetarian discussion, I feel sorry for those who acknowledge that the meat industry is wrong but do not act on it. And, I wonder: what is the point of preaching from our ethical high-ground when we're only causing pain? There have been quite a lot of people object to "smugness" on this thread. But, that isn't the right word. After thinking about it for some time, I think we're - inadvertently - "rubbing their faces in it". They're not going to change, we're just judging them for who they are and - by implication - congratulating ourselves. There is a function to this - there is a function to promoting vegetarianism - but, I don't want to be part of it anymore. I don't want to be an activist.



That's fine. You don't have to be. But you don't have to apologise for stating your values. People must realise that they are responsible for both their actions _and_ reactions. The intent behind this thread was never to cause upset. Anyone who has been upset by it; that's a pity but it's also their choice. I don't really want to censor my views for fear of offending "victims of fate". I don't believe there is such a thing, but we're straying into grounds that you don't want to hear about. 



> Change will exist without me. I've spent enough time, over the past couple of months, beating my head against a wall (only to mock the wall for remaining upright). In the end, I don't think this thread has accomplished anything



For you, maybe. I've gained something from it; further clarity and solidity to my motivations, and understanding of people who don't share my values. So I've gained some deeper knowledge that was previously inaccessible to me. YMMV.

It would seem that your attitudes have changed a bit over the last few months. You mention something quite beautiful, that you don't want to upset people by proving them wrong. That's a lovely compassionate idea, and I absolutely understand why you feel that. Do you think this topic helped make you aware of that idea? You may actually have gained something from this conversation too  



> This machine - Bluelight - is broken. People cannot hear what they don't want to (read: are destined not to) hear. This thread has helped me realize the futility of threads/discussions like this. You can't convince a shark not to attack dolphins. Some people are sharks. And, there's nothing wrong with that. I like sharks.



IME, when people have a less then enjoyable experience on Bluelight, they externalise that rather then deciding to be part of the solution. IMO making posts where you kill discussion immediately is not beneficial. This place isn't perfect, but it's a construct of the users, not the binary code behind it. We make this place what it is. 

I think you underestimate the ability of people to take on others views and overstate the futility of discussion. As I said, your views seem to have changed a bit as you empathise with your 'opposition'. Believing you are incapable of change because of destiny or fate just leads to weakness and atrophy. Its scary to me that there is nothing to guide me, nothing to save me, nothing to come and help me, no purpose. That is something I consider objective, or at least I see nothing in the universe to make me think otherwise. I make my purpose, I have the tools to help and save me, I trust my instinct to guide me and protect me, I use my mind where my instincts cannot go...





***​




It would be cool if some of you guys and girls could weigh in in our suggestions thread.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I never said I was incapable of change and, yes, this discussion has helped me in a number of ways.
I - now - realize that I don't, for now, anyway, want to have discussions on the internet.
Even the futility of a discussion is functional.

Also, after beating my head against a wall for so long I realize that I have to change strategies.
This - what I've observed, largely, in P & S - is no way to discuss anything.

What I meant by this thread accomplishing nothing, you confirmed by saying what you think it accomplished.
A lot of discussions, particularly those - it seems - that are anonymous and turn-based, only serve to re-enforce the opinions of those involved.
That's what you said, more or less. But, having expressed yourself at such length you've only served to justify your position on the matter.

If it is your intention to persuade people not to consume meat, as you've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, that isn't what you're achieving (here, anyway).
That shouldn't come across as a criticism: I don't think it's possible to achieve it on the internet, hence the (relative) futility of this discussion.

Similarly, when I say that Bluelight is a broken machine, that shouldn't come across as a criticism of the website and how it is being run. I think discussion forums, in general, lend themselves towards bickering and - although they should be the perfect place for discussion - they end up just being playgrounds for pissing contests and confusion... We've been playing a bullshit card, that I see being played all over this website. We tell people we're better than them and that they should do what we're doing, then - when they react negatively - we turn around and say that we didn't break any rules. It's atypical passive-aggressive shit, IMO, and I feel rather ashamed to have contributed to it to the extent that I have. People should do whatever they're doing.

I never said you thought people who eat meat are bad people. I said society labels murderers, and such, bad people.
I don't think there are any bad people. I don't think eating meat is wrong, either.
When I was away from BL, I went to stay on a meat farm that some friends own.
Haven't been there since I was a kid.

I drove out into the middle of a field to feed a bunch of sheep.
They seemed happy enough. I saw a newborn.
The sheep flocked after the ute we were in.

I'm not sure where these sheep would be if we all stopped eating meat.
What would happen to them. Is it better for them not to be alive?
I'm not convinced by the entire argument, any more.

So, I no longer think it is wrong to contribute to the meat industry.
I - personally - don't feel okay about doing it, but I wish I did.

My parents eat meat.
I don't think what they're doing is wrong.
I have no inclination, whatsoever, to convince them otherwise.

It's more complicated than that, like you say, in that we shouldn't feel like we have to hide.
People who drive electric cars get the same reaction that vegetarians do.
But, that's just something we're going to have to deal with.

People who give a lot of money to charity sometimes prefer to keep it secret.
I wish I could keep my vegan tendencies, and the reasons behind them, secret. But, I can't.
That doesn't mean I should engage in a 40 page discussion about it and pretend like I don't understand why it pisses people off.

Maybe there is a way to enact change.
Maybe it is possible to convince people to become vegans.
But, this isn't it. This is doing the opposite.

We dig in our heels, and so do they.
What's the point?


----------



## swilow

That's a good post dude 



ForEverAfter said:


> Also, after beating my head against a wall for so long I realize that I have to change strategies.
> This - what I've observed, largely, in P & S - is no way to discuss anything.



I've felt frustrated by this forum too. I found this thread to be almost confronting; I'm not used to arguing with a lot of people at once. But I've used it to benefit myself, so I perhaps have some reason to feel satisfied.



> What I meant by this thread accomplishing nothing, you confirmed by saying what you think it accomplished.
> A lot of discussions, particularly those - it seems - that are anonymous and turn-based, only serve to re-enforce the opinions of those involved.
> That's what you said, more or less. But, having expressed yourself at such length you've only served to justify your position on the matter.



Not precisely what I meant, though that too proves your point somewhat. What I meant is that by getting others to share their views on non-meat diets, I gained _insight_ into my own motivations by trying to view it from other's perspective. What person isn't something of a mystery to themself? And in doing that, I learned somethinI haven't really reinforced my views because some aspects of the discussion have caused me to actively question it. That's what I desired TBH, to "acquire knowledge".

I certainly am not pretending to be right about anything. How can what's right for me automatically be the same for everyone? 



> If it is your intention to persuade people not to consume meat, as you've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, that isn't what you're achieving (here, anyway).
> That shouldn't come across as a criticism: I don't think it's possible to achieve it on the internet, hence the (relative) futility of this discussion.



But that was not my intention at all, and I certainly never said that. I only wanted to see what other people thought of this lifestyle. It is hard, however, when discussing an active belief you hold, to not appear to be promoting it. I've tried to avoid that, but if that's what you see as the point of this thread, I've evidently missed the mark.



> We tell people we're better than them and that they should do what we're doing, then - when they react negatively - we turn around and say that we didn't break any rules. It's atypical passive-aggressive shit, IMO, and I feel rather ashamed to have contributed to it to the extent that I have. People should do whatever they're doing.



If you truly believe in destiny and compulsion, then you would know that its not YOU upsetting them; its their role to be upset. I see it slightly differently; if people have thought that I claimed to be better then them, that's their problem. I've never said that, and I don't think it. I am not responsible for peoples reactions; they are. Of course, I won't actively try to upset somebody, but if being honest does that, too bad. 

This isn't new though. Philosophy and ethics have seen people killed. 



> I'm not sure where these sheep would be if we all stopped eating meat.
> What would happen to them. Is it better for them not to be alive?
> I'm not convinced by the entire argument, any more.



If they didn't exist, literally nothing would happen to them; there would be _no_ them. If they are born, they will suffer a brief life of loss and no autonomy and a frightening death. The choice seems simple to me as a human.



> Maybe there is a way to enact change.
> Maybe it is possible to convince people to become vegans.
> But, this isn't it. This is doing the opposite.
> 
> We dig in our heels, and so do they.
> What's the point?



Communication is important. I hope to think that most people in this thread have also questioned their views, examined them and got to know them better. It happened to me. I see no reason to think that no-one else has benefited from this. This was never meant to convert people. If that's the perception, then yeah, this threads been a fucking blowout. But I don't see it like that. I saw it as disparate people sharing their idea's and mutually benefiting from it.  

I'm sure that I've done all the things you are saying, but I've never intended to. I don't care anymore whether I am right or wrong, I am me, you are you, we will always be seperate but there are ways to decrease the magnitude of that speration. Communication is one of the more effective ways. 

With that said, I don't think this particular thread will achieve much more. There are countless other discussions to be had though. I think it might actually be detracting from the overall forum though. I feel like I've benefited from this but no-one else has. It seems selfish to let it continue.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I certainly never said that.



Yes, you did. (I couldn't be bothered proving it.)



> If you truly believe in destiny and compulsion, then you would know that its not YOU upsetting them; its their role to be upset.



And it is my role, in turn, to make a "conscious" decision to separate myself from the situation.
It is my role to upset them; it is their role to be upset: either way, I'm not interested.

Maybe it's the role of futile childish ego-driven adult discussions, in general, to chip away at people until they eventually look down and see themselves exposed at the core for the absurd individuals they are. And, perhaps, the function of "people being upset" is (in part) to indicate that the people who are upsetting them should think about changing strategies. To just wash your hands of the whole situation is bullshit; just as it is bullshit for your side to accept all the "blame": we pass it off to them and they pass it off to us and "blame" essentially ceases to exist.

Its not you that's raping them; it's their role to be raped.

Et cetera.



> if people have thought that I claimed to be better then them, that's their problem. I've never said that, and I don't think it.



But it is implied, by this whole situation. That's why I feel uncomfortable talking about it to my family. People will inevitably ask you why you don't eat meat and - if you're brutally honest with them - it reads as if you're better than them. Although you don't accept this, it's there. It's not really your choice: if you are an activist; if you take a stance against something that is widespread in society that you think is wrong, people won't react very well to it. And we can say, "fuck it, we're doing the right thing," but - maybe - we're not. Maybe the more we talk about it, we're just upsetting people.



> I am not responsible for peoples reactions; they are.



I think you are - _at least_ to some extent - as responsible as they are.
It's about how you say it, as well as whether or not what you're saying is right.
Here, it's clear that the approach we're taking isn't working.
Yet we continue, with the same unfaltering tenacity.
This is a broken machine.

We're running a program, but we aren't adapting it according to the results.
We're upsetting people and they're telling us why; and all we can't hear it.
Because the program is righteous.

If you truly didn't think you were responsible for people's reactions you wouldn't be so polite, and you wouldn't have taken the job of a moderator. Surely, you have to acknowledge that there are right and wrong ways to say the same thing. (Again, I couldn't be bothered rewinding through this mess of a discussion and proving that we both accept this by quoting some of our interactions with turk.) If you can say something to somebody in the wrong way, then - in that situation - wouldn't you agree that you're at least somewhat responsible for their reaction to it? There's a lot of people on this forum that have been beaten into submission to the forum's socially accepted level of etiquette and learnt how to push people's buttons through a veil of bullshit internet etiquette... I often don't like the way that people are treated on this board and, when I spend time here, I find myself taking part in it. I feel like I'm being swallowed into a virtual cult, where certain values have been predetermined for me, full of passive-aggressive troll hunting assholes who get their kicks from shaming people they think they can publicly outsmart by Googling shit and passing it off as intellect.

Of course it's your responsibility how people react to what you say: that's part of the foundation of civilized discussion.
There is no objective standard for communication. Nobody can say what is a right or wrong way to say something.
We need to listen to each other; and, I don't see that happening a lot around here (from either side).
What is the right way to say something to, any given person, can be determined by their reaction.

We're not gauging reactions, and - consequently - coming up with more effective ways to communicate; we're not really enacting change: we're just yelling at each other, like those idiots in parliament; and latching onto the things that we can use against each other. You can say that you don't want to contribute to change, but I know you do. And, if you do - if we do - we need to change. Because, like I said, this ain't working.



> I'm sure that I've done all the things you are saying, but I've never intended to.



Intention is meaningless without free will... We need to be aware of what we're doing, if our trajectory is to change.
That's all I'm trying to do: facilitate change, rather than pretend to by repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome.
If I don't believe in free will, I don't believe in blame. So, there is no need to defend yourself. You're not on trial.

Whether or not you intended to is irrelevant.

You did it.
So did I.

We should recognize our faults and maintain that awareness, so that we can change (for good).


----------



## Xorkoth

Nice last few posts... very thought-provoking.

Willow, I feel I've gained from this thread too, not entirely in the ways you probably intended.  I have gained a greater understanding of some of the thought processes that go into people choosing veganism/vegetarianism, and even moreso than that, I have learned some things about the flow of discussion and the way people react to different ways of presenting opinions.


----------



## swilow

Regarding upsetting people while being polite; I was trying to induce a similar response back- that is what I wanted to get- some people _chose_ to react different. 



Xorkoth said:


> Willow, I feel I've gained from this thread too, not entirely in the ways you probably intended.  I have gained a greater understanding of some of the thought processes that go into people choosing veganism/vegetarianism, and even moreso than that, I have learned some things about the flow of discussion and the way people react to different ways of presenting opinions.



That's good to hear. I really had no intent for anyone but myself, so I'm glad to hear that you've gotten something from this. 

I'm going to shut this thread because its become relatively pointless and repetitve. I think foreverafter raise's some good points that are worthy of discussion and I thank him for that, but they are outside the scope of this thread. Please PM me if anyone wants me to re-open it.

Peace


----------



## swilow

Reopened at user's request. Play nice


----------



## turkalurk

Ninae said:


> The human ability to rationalise is truly amazing.



what can I say, I am a rational/reasonable person.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> My question to that would be from where does this fate/destiny/role emanate? Fate implies structure and design. To be honest, life on earth doesn't not really seemed planned and purposeful. It seems whimsical, arbitrary, chaotic. I can't really see any signs of fate or defined 'role' in my own life, so I wonder if such is another faithe based belief. I wonder if such a view is positive. Does believing in fate or destiny lead us to learned helplessness? I could see that happening... I think you make your own fate. That could be an illusion but its convincing enough for me. I think that being alive at all, you have already met the extent of your fate.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how this connects to the topic at hand, unless you are talking about animals "role" as food for humans...?



willow, you just don't seem to interpret my words the way I intend them to be, because your personal biases seem to intervere on a level that makes it hard for me to talk to you.  Fate does not necessarily imply structure and design.  Did I mention god?  Is that what your problem is?  You think I am bringing god into the discussion and you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about it?  I believe I said that your fate is tied to the world simply being what it is.  This world emanates from a potentiality being actualized.  Existence/Being is my god.  If you think you can be anything other than what the world made you to be, then you are foolishly blinded by your ego.


----------



## ebola?

> willow, you just don't seem to interpret my words the way I intend them to be, because your personal biases seem to intervere on a level that makes it hard for me to talk to you.



Over the course of this discussion, this problem has not been unique to willow in the least; misinterpretation (and indeed, interpretation) is a two way street, and you may want to examine those factors that are common among situations in which you're misinterpreted.

Regardless, I don't see how leading with this type of rhetoric facilitates meaningful exchange.

But anyway, you have an interesting point: what is the meaning of "fate" (and teleology in general), in the absence of a deity?



> This world emanates from a potentiality being actualized.



Intriguing: this sounds decidedly Hegelian at first glance.

ebola


----------



## swilow

Turk, I see god/deity as implicit in the idea of 'fate'. Perhaps I'm mistaken.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I think fate (as it exists, broadly) is being confused with traditional / theistic fate.
Fate is just as much a component of physics as it is a component of any theistic belief structure.
Destiny doesn't imply intelligent design; predestination does: fate is synonymous with inevitability.
If you subscribe to the idea of free will, then you're going to have trouble accepting this.
But, fate doesn't imply predetermination by God or anyone else.

If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was _intended_ to do so is irrelevant. 

The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).

Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.

I think people need to believe that they have free will, which is why it (the illusion of free will) exists in the first place.
It is an oversimplification to assume that fate and/or destiny have anything to do with God or religion.
If you subscribe to causality (which I hope you do) then I don't see how you can (rightly) discount fate.


----------



## Ninae

Many still seem to be missing that what will be your "destiny" is something worked out by your higher  self before you come here. You may consult God but in the end it's down to you. Then when you find yourself confined in a human body and feel overwhelmed by your challenges you can turn around and blame God. 

But we're all sovereign beings and not actually as disempowered as that. Sometimes we may choose a difficult path for ourselves, but we have our reasons for it. This can get in the way of our love for God  while we're here, but as soon as we disembody we see things how they really are.

At least that's how I understand it. Your higher self is a god in its own right compared to the expression of yourself you are here, and this is who the conflict is really with.


----------



## swilow

Foreverafter, I feel like what you are describing is something different to fate, or different to mainstream idea's of fate. I know very little on this subject except for that which I've thought about myself so forgive me if I am missing the point...



ForEverAfter said:


> If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was _intended_ to do so is irrelevant.



I don't think that analogy works if you scale it up. Lets remember that cause and effect are essentially non-dual; they are aspects of the same thing. You can't have one without the other in this universe. Earlier, it was mentioned that people are fated to play certain roles (as meat-eater, or 'upset thread respondent' for example). The last domino falls (effect) after the first domino falls (cause). People don't eat meat (effect) because they are fated to (cause). That's a tautology. You can't describe a thing with reference to itself. I might be misunderstanding this though.

Inevitable action as you describe doesn't really work when you discuss the subtle nuances of human behaviour. It makes sense when you discuss directly perceivable causal relationships, but falls down when you try to apply it to our behaviours and ideals. The domino will fall if its pushed. But what is the cause behind people adopting certain attitudes or living certain types of lives? 



> The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
> We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).



But the dominoes cannot fall without impetus. That is a fact of the physical universe; you cannot have an effect without a cause and vice versa. 

Of course, I find it unlikely that there is a god similar to typical theistic god. I struggle with the concept of a personal god. Fate is utterly personal. For a human to live a fated life, every event around them must be tailored specifically to manifest a certain outcome. I cannot describe exactly how counter-intuitive this is to me, how at odds it is with my experiences inside the universe. Its a compelling illusion  Without a personal god or entity to dictate fate, from where does it originate? If not from god, can it therefore be superseded? 



> Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
> Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
> Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
> Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.



Isn't the very nature of chance something random and uncontrolled? 

My dissociative experiences have really altered my perception of free will. I think that we have it, to some extent, but that it is very different to what we might consider. I think the reality of free-will would probably appear un-free to many. I am hesitant to share any more because my idea's might seem quite strange so I might hold them close for now.

I'm enjoying where this thread has gone. I think we discuss something important here.


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> I think fate (as it exists, broadly) is being confused with traditional / theistic fate.
> Fate is just as much a component of physics as it is a component of any theistic belief structure.
> Destiny doesn't imply intelligent design; predestination does: fate is synonymous with inevitability.
> If you subscribe to the idea of free will, then you're going to have trouble accepting this.
> But, fate doesn't imply predetermination by God or anyone else.
> 
> If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was _intended_ to do so is irrelevant.
> 
> The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
> We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).
> 
> Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
> Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
> Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
> Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.
> 
> I think people need to believe that they have free will, which is why it (the illusion of free will) exists in the first place.
> It is an oversimplification to assume that fate and/or destiny have anything to do with God or religion.
> If you subscribe to causality (which I hope you do) then I don't see how you can (rightly) discount fate.


I am very in live with causality, karma, conditioned realities, ect. I used to be obsessed by that fact that if I am not, you are not .

how can you talk about causality and then talk about fate and destiny
its like, causality is automatically refuting any believe in fate or destiny imo. 

can you tell me why fate observably exist? perhaps we dont have the same definition


----------



## ForEverAfter

The domino thing is an imperfect analogy.
Obviously, there needs to be somebody to push the first domino.
And, without God, there isn't. So, look beyond that...
I don't have the energy to come up with anything better.

As for whether or not I misunderstand fate, look it up.
There are two definitions of fate.



> Isn't the very nature of chance something random and uncontrolled?



No.
(If your entire understanding of chance is based around a dictionary definition, then yes.)

Probability is never random or uncontrolled, unless - maybe - you're running a random generator... I'd have to think about that... But, normally, like when you roll a dice, there are many many factors that contribute towards the result: the position of the dice as it hits the table; the speed of your release; etc. And, before you jump on that and tell me it is an imperfect analogy.. I know it is. Because, again, if you take it literally, there is no God "throwing the dice". So, what are the factors that contribute towards the result of the universe? I don't know. But there is no "random chance" in a causal universe. Maybe at first there is, due to the formation/orientation of whatever sets of the big-bang.

Probability - chance - is how we determine the likeliness of any given event, not knowing the factors that are contributing to their occurrence or lack thereof.

...

Murphy, you're asking me to prove something to you that: a) I can't; and b) I couldn't be bothered.

The domino analogy will have to work for you.
I will repeat it, and tweak it a little bit.

Once the dominoes are already in action (forget about how they start to fall), and assuming that they are set up perfectly, the final domino is fated to fall last. Fate and causality overlap; the latter exists within the former. One is long term. The other is short term. A domino hitting another domino and causing it to fall is causality. And so is the first domino hitting the second, hitting the third, hitting the fourth, and so on, until it hits the final domino. Short term causality is a subset of fate. Long term causality is fate. The only thing separating causality and fate is the illusion that we are in control of our destinies (the illusion of free will). But, you are only in control as much as fate has allowed you to be in control (as, I think, willow suggested*). This is part of the illusion. We are free to act in certain ways, but we're only free to act in those ways because events have paved the way for that freedom (of ours).

*It's hard to know whether or not he did suggest it, because he doesn't "want" to say what he thinks about free-will.
Or, maybe, he's not free to discuss his thoughts on free will?
Then again, maybe this is the push he needs?
Maybe now he is "free".

People who fate delivers as heroes are free to save lives, but not to destroy them.
People who fate delivers as villains are free to destroy, but not to save.
Obviously, this is an imperfect categorization.
I'm simplifying things.
I have to.

It's impossible for any of you to prove (in any way) that we're free to act in more than one way.
There's no point discussing it, because I can't prove that we're destined to act in a certain way.
It just seems obvious, to me, given what we know.



> For a human to live a fated life, every event around them must be tailored specifically to manifest a certain outcome.



No, dude. For fuck's sake.
You're still thinking about fate in the simplified narrative way.
The events aren't tailored, necessarily. That implication doesn't exist.
You keep suggesting that there must be a God or a plan for fate to exist, but that's not the case.
Maybe you're fated to not understand this, due to your issues with God/religion.

Here's another bad analogy.
People say the big bang is like an explosion.
It isn't. But, let's just say it is. An explosion in a vacuum.
There are a shit load of factors that determine where the pieces will go.
Those factors do not tailor specifically to the resulting position of any single piece.



> Fate is utterly personal.



No, it isn't. Personal fate is personal. Fate - as inevitability - is not.

Here's (yet another) bad analogy:
If a man is on an airplane that has run out of gas while flying over an active volcano, he is going to die.
It is his fate, from that moment, at least, to die on the plane (or while attempting to evacuate the plane).

You might argue that it was his decisions that led him to being in the plane at that moment in time.
And, you might be right. But that doesn't change the fact that (beyond the point of no return) he is fated to die.

Were the people who died on 911 (specifically: the passengers on the plane) fated to die?
If not, how were they not fated to die? How could they have avoided it?

Fate observably exists, all the time.



> Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
> Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?



Nobody has answered these questions, adequately.


----------



## swilow

You're right really. This conversation is pointless. I understand why you don't want to answer certain questions because I totally feel the same way. I think we have different idea's of what is meant by fate. I feel like I am (mis)using the mainstream interpretation which differs from your own more complicated one and I don't have the energy to try and understand both. I found your post interesting though.


----------



## Ninae

willow11 said:


> I feel like I am (mis)using the mainstream interpretation which differs from your own more complicated one and I don't have the energy to try and understand both.



I find this to be an eternal, recurring problem. Not only is it that people tend to misunderstand, many also seem unwilling to see something differently or annoyed to be asked to. It's like (in their mind) they have worked out their reasons why some concept or other isn't valid and then to hear it defined in a different way makes it kind of useless (many haven't really looked into these things in too much depth). 

This is especially the case with those who want to uphold the old-fashioned divide between science and religion, or theism and atheism, that they might have an emotional attachement to and feel a self-identification with. Although people like this, who are virtually religiously anti-spiritual, resembles more someone belonging to a religious group than someone just being without a spiritual dimension in their life. 

The truth is that it is a form of belonging and self-identity for many (on both sides) and that can be seen as more important than search for the truth or even what makes sense. Esoteric Christianity or mystery versions of other religons are a good example in that they can have a system of thought that is almost the opposite of the mainstream version of it, so if someone aren't familiar with that they don't really know what to say.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I understand why you don't want to answer certain questions



Give me the questions. Nothing else. Just 1/2/3/4/5/etc.
I'll answer them. I've been thinking about it.


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> Give me the questions. Nothing else. Just 1/2/3/4/5/etc.
> I'll answer them. I've been thinking about it.



No, I really don't want to have that sort of discussion. What I meant is that you've made a few statements that you then go on to say you don't wish to discuss. That's fine; I feel the same about some things too. I don't agree with your notion of fate. It doesn't make sense to me. But its all good, despite what might be thought, I've genuinely gained something from this conversation. Even if its only been affirmation. 



drug_mentor said:


> I am curious if many people who identify as vegetarian or vegan would have a problem with eating the flesh of an animal that was killed humanely, like one that was hunted and killed quickly with a clean shot? If it makes anyone feel better, this could be a deer or a kangaroo that was local to an area where deer/kangaroo populations were above what the environment could sustain, and it would almost certainly have died a more painful death due to starvation, had it not been culled.



In short, no sane person would have a problem with ethical/merciful slaughter on animals. I support euthanasia for humans and animals. 

My main problem is with factory farming. Its the life of sufferring that I find distasteful. Killing can be fair. But I see an inherent lack of justice and mercy in the natural world; or moreso, I see that humans have invented these things. Its for that reason that I think they are important qualities for all. Without us creating mercy and justice, they are absent. 



> Mainly, I want to know whether peoples objection to consumption of animal flesh derives from an objection to factory farming or meat eating in general? Despite my hypocrisy, I can largely sympathise with the former position, but I have trouble understanding the latter.



I have no feelings about the aesthetics of meat eating. It doesn't disgust or appeal to me. The farming does disgust me. It can anger me that I played a part in that. 



> Willow11, in your OP you link to the 'deep ecology' philosophy and allude to the fact it has influenced your current diet. I did not have time to read extensively about deep ecology tonight, but skimming over the link you provided it suggests that even plants are believed to have interests and, generally, beings with interests are regarded to have rights.
> 
> If even plants have interests (and therefore rights), then is it merely a matter of stringency of rights that makes it alright to violate a plants right to life, but not a cows? If not, I can't see where humans are supposed to get their sustenance from, because consuming any being one had to kill would be impermissible. If it is merely a matter of stringency, then couldn't it be argued that the nature of human experience is likely to cause humans to notice and relate to the interests of other mammals, and the idea that mammals have greater interests than plants could very plausibly be derived from our mammalian bias? If that is the case, it could be argued that consuming the flesh of some mammals may not be more unethical than consuming plant matter.
> 
> Furthermore, if plants have interests, and by extension some minimum basic rights, but these rights are not stringent enough to prevent their consumption by humans. Is it really unfair to suppose that some animals rights are not stringent enough to warrant humans abstaining from consuming their flesh?



You're right, we have discussed this. But only madmen would have read this entire thread... 

I think that all living creatures have rights, me included. Animals rights shouldn't be defined by their utility to me. Nor is a plant. They have inherent utility to themselves. There is no such objective quality as "rights" in the universe. We take our rights. They are not given to us. But if we wish our rights to have objective meaning, we cannot overlook the majority of earthly life-forms and their rights too. 

If a house was burning, and a human and a gorilla and a tree were inside and I could only save 1, I would save the human. I think a human has the greatest capacity to experience life fully, so the loss of a human life represents a greater loss then that of another. It is arbitrary, I admit, but its the truth. I think that the capacity for sufferring descends according to the intelligence and self-awareness of the subject. 

I think there are safe and sustainable ways to consume animals products, but I think we are neglecting these. Until that point, I am personally not going to eat something of whose lifes-quality I cannot verify. I am not interested in bearing responsibility for making anything on earth worse then when I found it. I will probably do so anyway; it is my nature as a human to shape my environment; but I am going to try and I cannot understand why people find that offensive. (not saying you do, just in general). But I also cannot care about offending people if I am being true to myself.


----------



## Incunabula

ForEverAfter said:


> I think fate (as it exists, broadly) is being confused with traditional / theistic fate.
> Fate is just as much a component of physics as it is a component of any theistic belief structure.
> Destiny doesn't imply intelligent design; predestination does: fate is synonymous with inevitability.
> If you subscribe to the idea of free will, then you're going to have trouble accepting this.
> But, fate doesn't imply predetermination by God or anyone else.
> 
> If you line up a bunch of dominoes, the final domino in the line (assuming it runs in a direction) is fated to fall last. But, assuming that you don't believe in God or intelligent design, let's say the dominoes are just there (randomly arranged into a line). If so: the last domino is still fated to fall; whether or not it was _intended_ to do so is irrelevant.
> 
> The question of whether or not there is a God doesn't affect the nature of causality.
> We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are (extremely complex, non-linear) dominoes (read: reactionary bodies).
> 
> Traditional theistic fate is not fate; fate observably exists.
> Prior to the evolution of conscious species that (supposedly) have free will, what determined the specific formation of this universe?
> Was it all created randomly? If so, is every possible outcome accounted for? And, if not, who or what determines which outcome occurs?
> Chance itself has to be governed by something... and if all outcomes exist, then that (infinity) is fate as much as this (finite) universe is.
> 
> I think people need to believe that they have free will, which is why it (the illusion of free will) exists in the first place.
> It is an oversimplification to assume that fate and/or destiny have anything to do with God or religion.
> If you subscribe to causality (which I hope you do) then I don't see how you can (rightly) discount fate.



I think you are talking about determinism, and not fate? Am I right?

Anyway, I´m sorry, but envoking quantum physics to underscore your point is totally wrong because the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum physics, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, actually states the absolute opposite of what you are saying, and that is that the world is fundamentally statistical and indeterministic..... And while there is more than one interpretation of quantum physics, they sure aren´t equal, and as wierd and as unintuitive as the Copenhagen interpretation may be, none of the other interpretations comes close to it in the same degree of experimental verification.

So far, it looks like our universe might very well be fundamentally indeterministic, eventhough it seems completely illogical and odd. But of cause, we don´t know that for sure. But what is sure is that you don´t get to use quantum physics as some kind of evidence for determinism. It´s actaually what the whole argument between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein was about, and as it appears today Borh was right: there doesn´t seem to be any hidden variables.

Classical physics and Einstein´s theory of relativity are deterministic though. But as the latter states that time is relative, does that not do away with causality as a fundamental part of our universe? I think it might, and in that case then there´s more wierdness in store for us as we discover the nature of what spacetime really is. And it´s most certainly not as it appears to us anyway.

So, I don´t undestand how you can be so sure that all events are predestined to happen and that the universe is deterministic.  I really don´t see how you can be so sure about that.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I think you are talking about determinism, and not fate? Am I right?



No. Determinism overlaps with non-theistic fate. (Look at the second definition of destiny in the link you provided.) It's very rare for any terms to be completely independent of each other.

...

I get the impression that nobody really understands what I'm suggesting and I don't have the motivation to endlessly clarify my position. I'll keep my response short: I've already said that every eventuality may occur, and that doesn't interfere with my perspective of fate. If all events are fated to occur - if the multiverse branches off into different paths - then, those are our fates (plural). Although modern science suggests that our fates are not determined, in the sense that there are multiple possibilities, there are a finite number of possibilities/eventualities. I was discussing fate in the context of free will, and none of this has any impact on that discussion. There is little evidence, so far, at least, to suggest that our decisions steer us in different directions...



> Anyway, I´m sorry, but envoking quantum physics to underscore your point is totally wrong because the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum physics, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, actually states the absolute opposite of what you are saying, and that is that the world is fundamentally statistical and indeterministic.



My point isn't "totally wrong" because I subscribe to a different interpretation.



> Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[36] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[37] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.[38][39][40] Often, as is the case with the 4 referenced sources, the acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation as the preferred view of the underlying nature was below 50% amongst the surveyed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Whether or not the universe is deterministic on a quantum level is not clear, yet. We can observe, in the short term, direct causal relationships. And we know - through modern science - that there are causal relationships that are extraordinarily complex that we can't begin to understand. So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.

Although polls show that people opt for the Copenhagen interpretation over other options, that doesn't indicate that it is the "correct" interpretation. Rather, simply, that there are no better options on the poll. It DOES NOT have widespread acceptance, throughout the scientific community, as indisputably true. I couldn't be bothered looking into how popular it is, exactly, but - from what I've read - it's somewhat 50/50...



> So, I don´t undestand how you can be so sure... I really don´t see how you can be so sure about that.



Likewise.

And I'm not so sure, for the record.
I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.
You believe (to some extent) in what you believe because you believe that the majority of scientists believe it (which they don't).

...

That was a much longer response than I intended to write.
I really don't want to continue this discussion.
It's a waste of my time.

If anyone responds to me, I'm not going to reply.
Chalk that up to a win, if you like.
I don't mean to be rude.


----------



## murphythecat

I think we all agree, but the different definitions of the word fate, destiny mix everyone.

for my definition, fate is that magic idea that no matter what you do in this life, if your fate is to die at 45 years old, you will die at 45 years old and no matter what you do in this life wont change your ''fate''. In this, I cannot believe that definition at all.

In that way, Id say I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.


----------



## turkalurk

people delude themselves into thinking fate is a personal thing that can be changed.  Just as they do with god.  They pray to god hoping it will favor them, but just like fate, the Supreme Being is objectively impersonal.  We can personalize it like we do everything else.  You know how I know when something was meant to happen?  Because it happened.  This reality emanates from the inherent properties of existence.  If this can all come fro? nothing then it remains a potential to happen for all of eternity.  Whether it happens again in a seperate isolated universe, or whether the same one remanifests itself over and over, the outcome remains the same.  In an infinite span of time, randomness is meaningless because whatevet can happen eventually will happen and will happen an infinite amount of times.  predetermination of quatum theory refers to predictability of outcomes.  It has little to do with fate.  Our fate exists because it is woven into the fabric of being itself.  We are destined to live this life because of the way the world is.  Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate.  As a Buddhist, how do you interpret dependent origination?


----------



## swilow

^He did say that he doesn't believe in fate...


----------



## ForEverAfter

I said I wasn't going to reply, but I can't help myself. (Damn fate!)



> people delude themselves into thinking fate is a personal thing that can be changed. Just as they do with god. They pray to god hoping it will favor them, but just like fate, the Supreme Being is objectively impersonal. We can personalize it like we do everything else. You know how I know when something was meant to happen? Because it happened. This reality emanates from the inherent properties of existence. If this can all come fro? nothing then it remains a potential to happen for all of eternity. Whether it happens again in a seperate isolated universe, or whether the same one remanifests itself over and over, the outcome remains the same. In an infinite span of time, randomness is meaningless because whatevet can happen eventually will happen and will happen an infinite amount of times. predetermination of quatum theory refers to predictability of outcomes. It has little to do with fate. Our fate exists because it is woven into the fabric of being itself. We are destined to live this life because of the way the world is.



Agreed. 100 percent.
(Except for the thing about murphy. He did, indeed, say that he doesn't believe in fate. You misread it.)



> I think we all agree



We don't agree on the following:



> I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.



Your ability to change (or lack thereof) - in any given situation - is determined by events preceding that decision.
People like to take credit for their position in the universe, but there are so many factors that determine your life.
Beyond your parents and your schooling. I mean every interaction you've ever had, with anyone.
And, beyond that, the entire evolution of our species. All species. The formation of the planet.
Everything leads you to a point in your life, where you "make a decision".

People like to think that they're in control, and they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Until we prove that there are multiple parallel universes, we only know - with any certainty - that we can do what we actually do.
And, like I said, if there are multiple universes, current scientific theory indicates that there are a finite number of them.
So, assuming that there are a finite number of them, perhaps we can navigate fate by making conscious decisions.
But, those decisions are limited (again, by the events leading us to the decision).

Only in an infinite multi-verse, where every possibility is played out, are we "free" to change (beyond the constraints of fate).
But then, we're fated to make every decision.

People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.

We need to understand, and accept, our limitations.
We judge murderers, but - really - anybody could be a murderer (given the wrong circumstances).
This is what I meant, earlier, when I said "victims of fate".

Society's perception of right and wrong is archaic and uncivilized.
There should be some acknowledgement that people who do wrong aren't monsters.
They serve a function. Wars are necessary. Everything is precisely as it should be.
It's not our responsibility to steer the universe. We are passengers.


----------



## murphythecat

ok, I understand your definition of fate. I agree for the most part, its hard to disagree

*People struggle with life, I think, because they don't believe in fate.
They blame themselves for things far beyond their control.
They try to modify behavior that they cannot modify.
*
how can you know for sure what you can change in you and what you cant? 
IMO, theres nothing in this universe that is stationary, everything change constantly. therefore, Id be very careful by saying what we can and cannot change in us, as that knowledge is limited so much by our own experience that we cannot know what we do not know.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I cannot know, but I can observe people struggling (sometimes their entire lives) to modify certain behaviors. Addiction is a great example. Some people convince themselves that they have to be absolutely sober all the time after having bad experiences with substance abuse. And they struggle to achieve that, which causes them to relapse harder than if they just accept the fact that they like drugs. People need to be aware of their limitations. Sexuality is another example. I don't believe there is a gay gene. If there is, what about bisexuals? Do they both have the gene and not have it at the same time? This is why bisexuals piss off either side. Why people say "chose a side". Because people need to believe that - since they cannot change it - it is genetic. We struggle to convince ourselves - medically and scientifically - that we are "free" by misinterpreting data to suit our agenda... I know a pair of (male) twins who are heterosexual and homosexual respectively. They are genetically identical. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it isn't genetic either. Because nothing, really, is a choice. (Or, at least, the choice is an illusion.)



> how can you know for sure what you can change in you and what you cant?



You cannot know the future; you cannot know what will change and what won't: but, you don't need to know... do you?

Let me ask you this.
How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?


----------



## murphythecat

hi
I dont believe in gay/ straight. I believe this is very cultural. I'm bisexual myself. I therefore believe also that in the homosexual and heterosxual camp, there is some kind of a lie: you have to choose: gay or straight. 

I personnaly, since I feel I am really both gay and straight, do not entirely buy the gay agenda either. from what I realize from being in contact with many gay male and female, it seems yet another way for individuals to find a identity, create a self, a ego. many gay men seem to exaggerate their sexual tendencies and make a image out of it just like machos who cannot accept  that part of their sexuality (bisexual). I tend to think we are all bisexual, I may be wrong though, but thats my gut feeling and ive never talked to someone face to face about it with whom I knew he wasn't at all a bit bisexual even though he pretended he wasn't.


what I mean to say is that, you cannot know for sure anything you observe outside of you. the only thing you can know is you and what YOU have to do in this life. all the observing and thinking about something outside of ourselves is useless and more importantly, always completely or at least partially incomplete or false.





ForEverAfter said:


> I cannot know, but I can observe people struggling (sometimes their entire lives) to modify certain behaviors. Addiction is a great example. Some people convince themselves that they have to be absolutely sober all the time after having bad experiences with substance abuse. And they struggle to achieve that, which causes them to relapse harder than if they just accept the fact that they like drugs. People need to be aware of their limitations. Sexuality is another example. I don't believe there is a gay gene. If there is, what about bisexuals? Do they both have the gene and not have it at the same time? This is why bisexuals piss off either side. Why people say "chose a side". Because people need to believe that - since they cannot change it - it is genetic. We struggle to convince ourselves - medically and scientifically - that we are "free" by misinterpreting data to suit our agenda... I know a pair of (male) twins who are heterosexual and homosexual respectively. They are genetically identical. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it isn't genetic either. Because nothing, really, is a choice. (Or, at least, the choice is an illusion.)
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot know the future; you cannot know what will change and what won't: but, you don't need to know... do you?
> 
> Let me ask you this.
> How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
> Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?


----------



## ForEverAfter

While I tend to agree with you, somewhat, I don't think you can rule out hetero/homosexuality.
I never speak (or type) in absolutes, so when I say homosexual I mean mostly homosexual.

Most gay guys, if stuck on a desert island with a woman, would - eventually - have sex. But, I'm not sure about all of them. There are some "super gay" guys that have invested so much time and effort in their identity, I suspect they might manage to not have sex. But, this is a very small category. The same goes for heterosexual guys, stuck on an island together. The vast majority will have sex with each other, but some probably won't. There are people doing life sentences in jail who chose to be abstinent instead of having sex. I can only speculate as to why this is, but I tend to suspect that it's an insecurity issue.

I've known quite a few gay guys who've been married (to a woman) for decades and had kids. But, they still identify as gay. I've questioned a couple of them about it, because it doesn't appear to make sense. In the end, I concluded that it's not really our place to tell them that they're not gay (any more then it is there place to tell us that we're not bisexual). To say that there is no gay or straight is controversial, because people live gay and straight lives. The implication is that they're living a lie. And, you're not implying it. You're flat out saying it.



> I therefore believe also that in the homosexual and heterosxual camp, there is some kind of a lie: you have to choose: gay or straight.



What if there is no choice?
I mean, did you chose to be bisexual: if so, how?
Didn't events lead you to being more open-minded about sexuality?



> from what I realize from being in contact with many gay male and female, it seems yet another way for individuals to find a identity, create a self, a ego.



Agreed. But ego isn't a dirty word.



> many gay men seem to exaggerate their sexual tendencies and make a image out of it



Sure, they're really in touch with their "gay side".
This isn't the norm from the current generation, though.
Gay guys, these days, tend to be less camp.



> I tend to think we are all bisexual



But we don't all live bisexual lives, and we aren't going to. I think what you mean is that we all have the potential to be bisexual. A gay guy who sleeps only with other gay guys isn't actively bisexual, and he's probably never going to be: he is gay. This comes back to fate, again. You might as well say that we're all Olympic ice skaters when we're born, because we all have the potential (from birth) to become Olympic ice skaters. I hear what you're saying, but the logic is wrong. We are what we are. The entire gay/lesbian community isn't going to suddenly realize that bisexuality is the only truth, and become bisexual. So they're not bisexual. They're gay. And, what about beastiality (cross-species sex)? It happens with a shitload of species (as does homosexuality) and (like homosexual acts in jail) adolescents brought up in the country are (statistically) pretty likely to experiment with farm animals (given no alternative).



> you cannot know for sure anything you observe outside of you



Agreed.



> the only thing you can know is you and what YOU have to do in this life



Lots of people have delusions of grandeur, so clearly many people don't know what they are supposed to do with this life.



> all the observing and thinking about something outside of ourselves is useless and more importantly, always completely or at least partially incomplete or false



This sort of statement is where you completely lose me. If you stop observing and thinking about the external world, what kind of life are you going to live? This is why fundamentalists become monks, I think. Because they have to create an environment where nothing is "wrong". But, that's not progressive. There's no reason to be so afraid of being wrong. Yes, everything is at least partially incomplete or false. But, that's okay. We never would have developed the beautiful language we're using right now, if we didn't create (relatively) shitty languages to begin with.

Observing and thinking isn't useless, dude.
You seem to think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the world.
I've encountered this attitude in many of your posts.

Everything is precisely as it should be (including, strangely, your insistence that it isn't).
I'd love to convince you of this, because you seem like a nice person with a good heart.
I think you're over-thinking the Buddhist stuff and it is detracting from your potential towards enlightenment.
Beware of fundamental thinking. (If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.)


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate.  As a Buddhist, how do you interpret dependent origination?


I dont believe in fate though, my post was about me NOT believing in fate!

dependant origination is indeed in a way against the idea of fate. but as foreverafter explained, the way he see fate is much more related to your opinion and definition and mine that what the word fate means for most people. the way foreverafter described fate was very much alike the concept of dependent origination and conditioned realities almost and your also.


----------



## ebola?

> How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
> Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?



Sexual desire is one thing, and it doesn't seem particularly amenable to choice.  Those who find the direction of their desires problematic usually fail in trying to erase or redirect their basic impulses.  Accordingly, psychiatry has not developed any legitimately effective therapy to help people attempting such.  However, this is only the beginning point (logical and causal) of human sexuality.  Sexual practices, cognitive schemata, cultural meanings, and so forth are subject to a host of social influences and the history of the individual attempting to navigate both their desire and these external influences.  It is only through this complex process that we establish sexual identity and express this identity to others.  It's rather telling that our current framework of sexual orientation, primarily as a binary between gay and straight, is historically quite new, only truly consolidating during the Victorian period.  Now from time immemorial, there have been people whose sexual desire is oriented primarily or solely toward the same sex, but only recently have they been compelled to choose to accordingly identify in terms of this binary orientation, which we take to be the most basic component of sexual identity.

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

foreverafter,
about gays in prison and all, I agree. its hard to know why some prefer to stay celibate ect. 
the way sexuality is portrayed in our society is still very straight oriented and homosexuality is still super taboo I dont mean gay men live a lie, . what I said is I dont think anyone is mutually gay or mutually straight. therefore, everyone who pretend to be strictly gay or straight is, imo,omitting to say honestly that he is also BI.

about the choice to being bi, I dont think its a choice at all. I choose however to accept that part of me.

monk who stay monk all their lives, because 85% eventually disrobes, are those who have reached and mastered meditative absorption.
I should maybe pm you this, but there are 9 jhanas, and many monk describes each of them and says what each jhanas brings like insight.
the first jhana brings insight like this:
-once youve experienced the first jhana, you know that this experience was more fullfilling, blissful, satifying then ANY other experience youve ever had in your life.
- you understand that their cannot be contentment in the mind if there is wishes. in order to be conten, wishlesness in necessary.
- thinking process creates dukkha and they are detrimental to our happiness.
- what we are looking for in the world with the sense contact pleasure was inside all along and can be reached with concentration. therefore, that most incredible experience can be repeated as often as we want, with concentration. this brings liberation because we are dependant of outer ocniditon to brings us happiness, but with concentration and the first jhana, we realized that this experience is much more fullfilling then anything else.
-we dont need outer condition to happiness anymore.

the monk who do spent their lives in monastery are those who are able to reach those wonderful state of consciousness and are able to master it. once youve experienced those powerful states which bring immeasurable joy, Id say thats why they stay in a monastery: because they understand that the way to happiness is with concentration, with unification of mind with concentration rather then going outward, in the world and with the world trying to find pleasant sense contact.

if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it?  we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life. kill the buddha would be a way to eliminate the bias that buddhism is a religion. and in our world, religion  have a bad rep.

but I understand what you mean by my attitude toward the world. I cannot help myself anymore, I have had too many experience that showed me that nirvana is possible and real and that im the one to blame if I still suffer I have nothing else to blame but me!
theres nothing wrong with the world, just that the world is not what it looks like 

nice talking to you 2 foreverafter  (that is if you read me until here, cause I know you hate long post! )


----------



## snazzy_sn

I've read a few pages of this and will probably continue but I'd like to point something out that I'm sure has already been noted somewhere.

People know the difference, the fact that you're even able to make an argument that says something like 'are tigers immoral for killing the animals they eat?' in itself should tell you something.

We can tell the difference.  A tigers fucking biological mechanisms evolutionary instinct whatever whatever and inability to use reason or logic to make consider the nature/morality of it's dietary habits is why a tiger can kill shit without being immoral, without questioning it's own morality etc. etc. is why the tiger is has no accountability and why we do.  Well a lot of us I guess.


----------



## ebola?

FEA said:
			
		

> So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.



Right, but we similarly cannot say with any confidence that the universe is deterministic.



			
				Fagott said:
			
		

> And while there is more than one interpretation of quantum physics, they sure aren´t equal, and as wierd and as unintuitive as the Copenhagen interpretation may be, none of the other interpretations comes close to it in the same degree of experimental verification.



I think that you are either mischaracterizing the relative merits of the differing interpretations of QM or are mistinterpretating the scope of these interpretations in general.  Any viable interpretation will be consistent with empirical data (ie, we have discarded those interpretations that have been found inconsistent), but their purpose is not to predict observations but rather explain what these observations, laws, objects involved, etc. _mean_.  So for any given set of observations, there will be multiple consistent interpretations, all equally empirically valid (but often differing in terms of parsimony).  So for any given experimental result in particle physics, both the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations will work equally well (you're right in that because we haven't found any support for the hidden variables interpretation over many years, it has fallen out of favor).  And both interpretations are still used commonly within both physics and among philosophers of science.  In this way, interpretation of QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate.

ebola


----------



## ForEverAfter

murphy said:
			
		

> if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it? we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life. kill the buddha would be a way to eliminate the bias that buddhism is a religion. and in our world, religion have a bad rep.



Yes, I understand what I quoted about killing the Buddha.
You are treating Buddhism, IMO, like a fundamentalist Christian treats Christianity.



> theres nothing wrong with the world



I'm not convinced that you believe this, but - if you do - then that's great.



			
				ebola said:
			
		

> Right, but we similarly cannot say with any confidence that the universe is deterministic.



Agreed. I'm not saying the universe IS deterministic. I'm saying that I believe (strongly) in fate/determinism. I didn't tell anyone that they're "totally wrong"... Although I am confident in what I believe, I don't think I stated it (determinism) as a fact.



			
				me said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure, for the record.
> I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.



This is the sort of thing I was objecting to:



			
				Fagott said:
			
		

> what is sure is that you don´t get to use quantum physics as some kind of evidence for determinism



And, having read your response to Fagott, you seem to agree with my objection.



			
				you said:
			
		

> QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate


----------



## Incunabula

ForEverAfter said:


> I get the impression that nobody really understands what I'm suggesting.....


Well, I for one don´t understand it 



ForEverAfter said:


> My point isn't "totally wrong" because I subscribe to a different interpretation.


 That´s not what I´m saying. Read my post again. Fact is, quantum mechanics _are_ indeterministic and statistical. _THAT_ is an undisputable _FACT_!
There is then different interpretations of why that is.

Some scientists have made hypotheses that tries to explain away with the apparent indeterminancy, and thus explain how quantum mechanics just appears indetermistic to us. Einstein believed in hidden variables, and then there´s the many worlds theory, for instance, among others.

The Copenhagen interpretation posits that the world on the quantum plane actually behaves the way quantum mechanics describes it. It kind of takes quantum mechanics at face value.

Thing is, among all the possible interpretations the Copenhagen interpretation is the one today that´s holding the best up to time, _as far as I am informed_.

But it doesn´t really matter if I am right or wrong in that assumption, because clearly, the jury is still out, which is why it´s called "interpretations". But that doesn´t change the fact, that you do not get to use quantum physics as proof of the existence of any kind of fate, destiny or determinism.

For all we know, all of quantum mechanics might actually be completely wrong, but for now it appears legit because it works!

Personally, I think it is as usual with science......some much deeper truths still lie hidden, that will make quantum mechanics look mundane like classical physics in comparison.

Anyway, my point was and still is:
You do not get to use quantum physics or or modern physics in general, to prove your particular brand of "fate".

You just don´t 



ForEverAfter said:


> Whether or not the universe is deterministic on a quantum level is not clear, yet. We can observe, in the short term, direct causal relationships. And we know - through modern science - that there are causal relationships that are extraordinarily complex that we can't begin to understand. So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.
> Although polls show that people opt for the Copenhagen interpretation over other options, that doesn't indicate that it is the "correct" interpretation. Rather, simply, that there are no better options on the poll. It DOES NOT have widespread acceptance, throughout the scientific community, as indisputably true. I couldn't be bothered looking into how popular it is, exactly, but - from what I've read - it's somewhat 50/50...



Actuallly, it´s completely irrelevant how many psycisists believe in it or not, as I´ve already said, quantum mechanics _are_ indeterministic and statistical. 

Yes, It might very well be that it just appears to us that way, that there actually is some kind of invisible determinism at work, or some other unknown, unmeasured reality behind it all. Of cause it´s possible, but using quantum mechanics as proof of determinism, is just wrong.

I have never said I believe the universe is indetermistic. Unlike you, I´ve never claimed any absolute truths.



ForEverAfter said:


> I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.



No offense, but you subjective experience is unimportant.



ForEverAfter said:


> You believe (to some extent) in what you believe because you believe that the majority of scientists believe it (which they don't).



Nonsense  Were do I say that?

Again, I´ve never stated wether I believe in fate, or a deterministic or a indetermistic universe.

Again, I simply stated that you do not get to use quantum physics as some kind of proof of your beliefs.



ebola? said:


> I think that you are either mischaracterizing the relative merits of the differing interpretations of QM or are mistinterpretating the scope of these interpretations in general.  Any viable interpretation will be consistent with empirical data (ie, we have discarded those interpretations that have been found inconsistent), but their purpose is not to predict observations but rather explain what these observations, laws, objects involved, etc. _mean_.  So for any given set of observations, there will be multiple consistent interpretations, all equally empirically valid (but often differing in terms of parsimony).  So for any given experimental result in particle physics, both the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations will work equally well (you're right in that because we haven't found any support for the hidden variables interpretation over many years, it has fallen out of favor).  And both interpretations are still used commonly within both physics and among philosophers of science.  *In this way, interpretation of QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate.*
> ebola



You´re absolutely right of cause. 

But is there not a reason that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored more than other interpretations? I personally think it is because quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. Any deterministic theory always comes off as an attempt at trying to explain this unpleasant fact away.

And while we certainly can´t discount the many worlds theory, for instance, I personally think that Occam´s razor says it´s way too complex. In my opinion it reads more like science-fantasy than anything else. But of cause, any interpretation of quantum physics not explicitly proven wrong, goes.

I personally like the Copenhagen interpretation, because I think it would be more wierd if the laws governing the very smallest microscopic plane of our universe would be exactly similar to the laws governing the macroscopic. I mean, it would be wierd, if quantum physics weren´t wierd 

When I am talking of "evidence", by the way, I was of cause thinking of Bell´s inequality, which did away with Einsteins hidden variables. (or did it? Can there still be some kind of hidden variables?) And also an article I recently read about two danish physicists work on superposition. I´ll see if I can find it for you, but it´s in danish.

By the way, your last line is actually what I´ve been trying to say all along.


----------



## ForEverAfter

This is ridiculous.
I never said anything much about quantum physics in the first place.

This is all I said:



> We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics).



Note the word "like".
You responded to that sentence, with four and a half paragraphs.



> Fact is, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. THAT is an undisputable FACT!



No, it isn't a fact. Read up on it, if you don't believe me. I've already double-checked.



> No offense, but you subjective experience is unimportant.



None taken. And it is unimportant to what?
This isn't a science forum. It's a philosophy forum.
Your in the vegetarian thread. I was talking to somebody about fate.
So, my subjective experience is as relevant as anything else (as far as I'm concerned).



> Nonsense  W(h)ere do I say that?



You said that I was "totally wrong" because what I was saying contradicted the most widely accepted theory, indicating that it (the Copenhagen interpretation) is indisputable: you didn't say that the majority of scientists believed it; you said it was the most widely accept theory. My point remains. You have faith in the Copenhagen interpretation due to it's popularity (and, despite it's decline in popularity). That's all I was saying.

...



			
				you said:
			
		

> Unlike you, I´ve never claimed any absolute truths... Fact is, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. THAT is an undisputable FACT!



...



> I simply stated that you do not get to use quantum physics as some kind of proof of your beliefs.



Yes, I don't "get to".
But, you do.
Right?



> For all we know, all of quantum mechanics might actually be completely wrong



Yet quantum mechanics are unquestionably non-deterministic?
How does that make sense?


----------



## ebola?

_Off-topic_(c'mon: lay speculation about QM is fun)



			
				fagott said:
			
		

> But is there not a reason that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored more than other interpretations? I personally think it is because quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. Any deterministic theory always comes off as an attempt at trying to explain this unpleasant fact away.



I think that the main reason is historical: this is the first interpretation that was developed, and it was championed by the fathers of QM, principally Bohr and Heisenberg.  Beyond that, it comes down to what you consider "parsimony" in the absence of applicability to experimental adjudication.  The many-universes interpretation is elegant explaining a great deal of bizarre phenomena by adding one simple assumption.  In particular, it does well in reconciling the statistically determined behavior of observation in QM and deterministically functioning laws as we've typically known them   Its main weakness is how far fetched and removed it is from all experience we know.  The Copenhagen interpretation's parsimony lays in what you note as a seemingly direct understanding of the objects described by the theory.  But its weakness lays in some of the bizarre behavior of the objects of its interpretation, principally the key and poorly explained role of the observer in this process.

In short, the shape of the blade on Occam's razor is in the eye of he who wields it.

So it's sort of a toss-up, and honestly not institutionally relevant to physicists or cosmologists: one can undertake literally any line of research, and any viable interpretation of physical law will be compatible with it...and work interpreting theory tends not to be rewarded heavily in terms of these scientists' careers as researchers.



> When I am talking of "evidence", by the way, I was of cause thinking of Bell´s inequality, which did away with Einsteins hidden variables. (or did it? Can there still be some kind of hidden variables?)



I recall reading a description of this a while back, but my understanding is a bit too fuzzy to comment on it much.  I'll have to give it a look again and return back here.

ebola


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> Yes, I understand what I quoted about killing the Buddha.
> You are treating Buddhism, IMO, like a fundamentalist Christian treats Christianity.


I know you told me often
you simply do not understand all of it so you judge and reject rather then asking question. this is very detrimental for you
its not a opinion you have, its misinformation from your end.


----------



## ForEverAfter

I can see I'm not going to get through to you.
I give up. Let's just agree to disagree. 
I only have good intentions.
Perhaps I am misguided.


----------



## murphythecat

ForEverAfter said:


> I can see I'm not going to get through to you.
> I give up. Let's just agree to disagree.
> I only have good intentions.
> Perhaps I am misguided.



I dont think your misguided at all! where do we disagree exactly?


----------



## ForEverAfter

This is getting crazy off topic, like beyond ridiculous at this point.
But, I think we disagree on how Buddhism can become a religion.



			
				murphy said:
			
		

> if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it? we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life.



I actually agree with the words, but we interpret them differently (and I think the difference is significant).
I think you should treat Buddhism more like a philosophy, if you believe it is one (as opposed to a religion).
There are hints (at least) of religiosity throughout many of the things you've said in the name of Buddha.
Killing Buddha means not being a Buddhist but - rather - adopting the tenants of Buddhism (IMO).
I think some people treat the word of Buddha like the word of God, and I get that from you.
In fact, I don't encounter many Christians on this site that are as openly devout as you are.

We've done this loop a couple of times already and I apologize for that.
But, you did ask.


----------



## murphythecat

there no other way but to treat buddhism as a philosphy, because it is one. it doesnt mean anything to be a buddhist: we are all stuck into samsara wheteher you believe it or not.

it doesnt ask you to believe, it shows the way to more and more peace and happiness and when you actually put in practice the technicques, you will know it is true. as long as you havent tried it into actions, buddhism remains a intelectual concept. but once you put it in practice, it beecomes obviously true that the experience we can gain with meditation are what we are truly looking for in the world.
we have a lot of gratitiude and love for the teaching of the buddha indeed, but there is not worship, no hope to unite with him, ect. only the belief that he really got out of suffering and found the way to the end of suffering and showed us the path and the way to also realize that.

theres a the topic about killing the buddha.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12160



ForEverAfter said:


> This is getting crazy off topic, like beyond ridiculous at this point.
> But, I think we disagree on how Buddhism can become a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with the words, but we interpret them differently (and I think the difference is significant).
> I think you should treat Buddhism more like a philosophy, if you believe it is one (as opposed to a religion).
> There are hints (at least) of religiosity throughout many of the things you've said in the name of Buddha.
> Killing Buddha means not being a Buddhist but - rather - adopting the tenants of Buddhism (IMO).
> I think some people treat the word of Buddha like the word of God, and I get that from you.
> In fact, I don't encounter many Christians on this site that are as openly devout as you are.
> 
> We've done this loop a couple of times already and I apologize for that.
> But, you did ask.


----------



## swilow

As much as the thread is off-topic, I think its interesting to see the topic evolve so why not?


----------



## Xorkoth

Just like any conversation, they evolve over time because of everyone's opinions and perspectives.


----------



## ForEverAfter

murphy said:
			
		

> it doesnt mean anything to be a buddhist: we are all stuck into samsara wheteher you believe it or not.



Then, why identify as one?
(This is what I'm saying.)

I disagree that Buddhism can't be treated as a religion: anything can; people worship Elvis.
Your belief that Buddhism cannot be treated as a religion allows you to treat it as one without realizing it.



			
				believe said:
			
		

> it doesnt ask you to believe, it shows the way to more and more peace and happiness and *when you actually put in practice the technicques, you will know it is true. as long as you havent tried it into actions, buddhism remains a intelectual concept. but once you put it in practice, it beecomes obviously true that the experience we can gain with meditation are what we are truly looking for in the world.* we have a lot of gratitiude and love for the teaching of the buddha indeed, but there is not worship, no hope to unite with him, ect. only the belief that he really got out of suffering and found the way to the end of suffering and showed us the path and the way to also realize that.



I've said this before to you, and I'll say it again. Because, you keep acting as if I haven't said it. I guess you don't believe me, but: I have experienced what you're describing; and it doesn't belong to Buddhism. That's what kill Buddha means. Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it. You should be ready, when the time comes, to shed your identity as a Buddhist (if that happens to be the avenue that you chose)... What Buddhism describes is universal. Buddhism has no ownership over enlightenment. Nor does Christianity. Or Asia.

There are literally millions of people who worship various incarnations of Buddha.
I'm not saying that you worship Buddha, btw, just that you treat Buddhism as a religion.


----------



## murphythecat

I play soccer, I identify as a soccer player. whats wrong with that?

funny enough, I agree with SOME of your points. definitely, we all practice mindfulness in life and some of what the buddha taught is already applied in most of us.

to me, it seems you are confuse and in doubt and not fully get the full implication of the buddha teaching and its MANY aspects. you seem to have a broad understanding and then come up with all sort of conclusion and assumption about buddhism.
I also highly suspect that your understanding of buddhism, its implication, its techniques used necessary to attain even first jhana is totally ignored by you. 
I listen to maybe  3 talks per week from monk every week for a couple of years now and I still consider my understanding really limited. why? because its ONLY with practice that you can understand and realize his teaching.

killing the buddha. there was books written about it. killing the buddha means: killing the idea that buddhism is a religion because its not a religion and the fact that many people take it as a religion (even you men) is very detrimental to everyone. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12160

the buddha is simply a teacher for men. he teaches the way out of suffering. theres nothing religious about his teaching because it simply demands to apply and follow his methods and techniques. he dont ask to believe, in the contrary, he constantly reminds people that they have to verify what we taught and realize for ourselves what he, the buddha, realized. if you practice you will find out exactly what the buddha did realize.
some may treat buddhism like a religion, but those who really practice and apply Buddhist way of life in every moment, dont. 

I understand what you said here: *What Buddhism describes is universal. *
I agree its universal

*Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it
*
youve grown accustomed to what exactly?


ForEverAfter said:


> Then, why identify as one?
> (This is what I'm saying.)
> 
> I disagree that Buddhism can't be treated as a religion: anything can; people worship Elvis.
> Your belief that Buddhism cannot be treated as a religion allows you to treat it as one without realizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said this before to you, and I'll say it again. Because, you keep acting as if I haven't said it. I guess you don't believe me, but: I have experienced what you're describing; and it doesn't belong to Buddhism. That's what kill Buddha means. Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it. You should be ready, when the time comes, to shed your identity as a Buddhist (if that happens to be the avenue that you chose)... What Buddhism describes is universal. Buddhism has no ownership over enlightenment. Nor does Christianity. Or Asia.
> 
> There are literally millions of people who worship various incarnations of Buddha.
> I'm not saying that you worship Buddha, btw, just that you treat Buddhism as a religion.


----------



## turkalurk

where did I say murphy believes in fate?  He said he could change his fate.  I said that if it a hypothetical fate was changed, it wouldn't have been your fate.  Instead, it was your fate to change your life around.  I am not saying that you should just accept the way you came to be.  If something about you becomes unmanagable or harmful to you, I think it can be your fate to make the changes you need to make.  We can't control fate, but that is unimportant.  What is important is to be able to look into ourself and know we are giving it our best effort so that wr can appreciate who we are as individuals and be proud of our place in the world.

No murphy, most people are just plain straight.  I would never consider sex with a man.  Personally, i think its kinda gross.  To each their own, but that shit is yours bro.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> where did I say murphy believes in fate?  He said he could change his fate.  I said that if it a hypothetical fate was changed, it wouldn't have been your fate.  Instead, it was your fate to change your life around.  I am not saying that you should just accept the way you came to be.  If something about you becomes unmanagable or harmful to you, I think it can be your fate to make the changes you need to make.  We can't control fate, but that is unimportant.  What is important is to be able to look into ourself and know we are giving it our best effort so that wr can appreciate who we are as individuals and be proud of our place in the world.



Your wrote: 



			
				turk said:
			
		

> Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate.



In response to:



			
				murph said:
			
		

> In that way, Id say I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.



_You_ never said it. He did.



> No murphy, most people are just plain straight.  I would never consider sex with a man.  Personally, i think its kinda gross.  To each their own, but that shit is yours bro.



For some reason, I expected more then "its kinda gross" from you. Aren't you being discourteous to Murphy and undermining his 'place in the world' as a bisexual? You are undermining my own position too by making small-minded comments. 

This really isn't the place for a discussion on sexuality, least of all whether its nature or nurture. I think the whole fate discussion has been of use, but this particular line of enquiry may not be.


----------



## turkalurk

I can read what he wrote, and I understood from the begining that he does not believe in fate.  

However, he claims this is based on the fact that you can change your fate.  In response, I said that you can't change fate, or it wouldn't be fate.  I don't know why you people have such a hard time with my language even after I clarify it for you.  

I haven't undermined anyone's place in the world, nor could I.  I am just expressing my opinion.  If he wants to say ignorant things like everyone is really bisexual, then I will give him my honest feedback.


----------



## murphythecat

to be fair, I dont think EVERYONE is bisexual. It was said a bit fast. Im not sure about what I think about that.
surveys shows however that most people are not fully straight or fully gay and that we osscilliate between the 2 poles. those who are STRICTLY straight are as rare as those who are strictly gay.

I thought it was obvious from your post that you did understood what I had said though, not sure why willow didnt.





turkalurk said:


> I can read what he wrote, and I understood from the begining that he does not believe in fate.
> 
> However, he claims this is based on the fact that you can change your fate.  In response, I said that you can't change fate, or it wouldn't be fate.  I don't know why you people have such a hard time with my language even after I clarify it for you.
> 
> I haven't undermined anyone's place in the world, nor could I.  I am just expressing my opinion.  If he wants to say ignorant things like everyone is really bisexual, then I will give him my honest feedback.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I don't know why you people have such a hard time with my language even after I clarify it for you.



There are two reasons: they are fated to not hear you; and/or your language is unclear, sometimes, and you need to alter the way you communicate (which applies, I don't know)... And maybe you would be one of those guys stuck on a desert island for the rest of their life with another guy, who remains steadfastly heterosexual and never even considers having a bit of a dick-sucking session: in which case, I feel sorry for you... I don't think you are one of those people. You'd probably have a dick in your mouth before the end of the first year, assuming there were no signs of an impending rescue. And that's a compliment, by the way. What I'm saying is I know you're smart enough to suck a dick to save your (sex) life. (Despite how much you insist that you're not.)


----------



## methamaniac

If a vegan feeds  their meat eating pet meat, are they bad vegan? If they don't, are they a bad pet owner?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yes they're bad vegans and downright bad people too.
When I suspect my neighbors are feeding animals to their animals, I call the police.
Animals eating animals? That's cannibalism.



> If they don't, are they a bad pet owner?



If they starve their animals they are worse than the people who feed animals to their animals.
But, either way, it is disgusting.

...

Wait, hold on a second.
If both actions are wrong: what do we do?
That is, indeed, a dilemma worthy of serious consideration.
Let's run around in circles, for a while longer. (Since, apparently, there's nothing better to do.)


----------



## methamaniac

4ever... said:
			
		

> Wait, hold on a second.
> If both actions are wrong: what do we do?
> That is, indeed, a dilemma worthy of serious consideration.
> Let's run around in circles, for a while longer. (Since, apparently, there's nothing better to do.)



lulz....

But for real, cats can go blind and die on  a vegetarian diet. Poor kitties.


----------



## ForEverAfter

Yeah, my cats are blind.


----------



## turkalurk

I don't need sex that bad bro.  I'd rather jerk off for the rest of my life than to suck a dick.  You are just being stupid.  Not everyone values superficial gratification enough to compromise their integrity.


----------



## ebola?

Hahahah...your response to what was a decidedly fanciful hypothetical scenario is. . .telling. 

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

ebola? said:


> Hahahah...your response to what was a decidedly fanciful hypothetical scenario is. . .telling.
> 
> ebola



Everything you have ever written to or about me, tells me that your opinion is of little value to me.


----------



## swilow

^Perhaps it should be of value to you. Perhaps you do have something to learn despite your assurances otherwise...


----------



## ForEverAfter

> I'd rather jerk off for the rest of my life than to suck a dick.



Masturbation is borderline homosexual, anyway: it's pretty much the same as giving someone else a hand-job.
Since there's no pornographic material on my hypothetical island, the only way to be aroused heterosexually is to imagine.
So, you're going to sit there - on the other side of the island - and close your eyes and jerk off?
If so, why not just close your eyes and do a mutual masturbation session?
Either way, there's a dick in your hand... and you're pleasuring a man.
And, what if he hides in the trees and watches you (anyway)? Would that bother you? 
Do you have feel like you have to hide? Or, would you jerk off in front of him?

Here's another hypothetical:
What if "he's" a pre-op transsexual, with a beautiful feminine body and face.
Assuming he keeps his pants on, during the act, would you let him blow you?
You could just _imagine_ he was female, in the same way you imagine (whatever it is that you do imagine) in the absence of pornography... I mean, what's the difference?


----------



## swilow

Turkalurk said:
			
		

> I'd rather jerk off for the rest of my life than to suck a dick.



Okay, but what if you got your dick sucked back? I cannot believe you would forgo such glory simply because of a preconception. Or if you did, I would be left feeling really sorry for you...

...and the thread just got too off-topic. :D

But, this ties in to the analogy some here have tried to draw; that of how a vegan would respond if the only thing available for sustenance was meat- on a desert island, this time witthout the cock, but with only a family of cows or death, most would choose to break up the happy family. If survival was dependant on it, I'd not believe the person who claims they would stick to their diet and therefore embrace death. 

Is the need for sexual release a matter of survival?



			
				Foreverafter said:
			
		

> Here's another hypothetical:
> What if "he's" a pre-op transsexual, with a beautiful feminine body and face.
> Assuming he keeps his pants on, during the act, would you let him blow you?
> You could just imagine he was female, in the same way you imagine (whatever it is that you do imagine) in the absence of pornography... I mean, what's the difference?



I could guess that reality is the difference. It does seem arbitrary when you put it like that. But I'm sure that there are people that have no same-sex attraction, though IME I've hardly met any. Again IME it seems that more people have _some_ same-sex attraction. There is a continuum; it seems rarely binary. Of course, as someone who has identified as bisexual (though I no longer really do...), its likely that I associate with like-minded people so my sample is automatically biased. In generations older then my own (I am 32) I see a lot more rigidity against the idea of sexual-continuum; I guess its confronting to grow up in a society of pure dualistic sexuality to suddenly acknowledge shades of grey. I've found that as I've aged my ability to be sexually attracted to men has declined, and I find myself more oriented to females, which disappoints me becuase I fucking loved having the desire and wherewithal to play around. I've noticed that the things that are really arousing to me are more 'simple' as I've aged, in that the idea and act of coming inside a woman, like really really deep, is possibly the most appealing thing (shocking I know ) (; It's like doing so is the realisation of all fantasies, put plain and simple, and anything else is almost like masturbation. Anyway, I still like the idea of sucking dick but haven't done so for about 4-5 years; and TBH I'm not sure I can see myself going back at anytime soon. Perhaps after I've had kids I will turn-on again.  Anyway, that ends my blog entry...

Back to the desert island thing. Are examples of extreme and unnatural circumstances, and how one would behave therein, really good ways to demonstrate a _natural_ aspect of human sexuality? Are we committing reductio ad absurdum here? Maybe you could ask yourself what other things you could supplant for desert island and other man, such as desert island and gorilla or desert island and child. The analogy makes the assumption that there is something uncontrollable in human sexuality (or male sexuality, at least) which I am personally cautious of accepting.


----------



## methamaniac

ForEverAfter said:


> Yeah, my cats are blind.





U need to get them a seeing eye dog. (guide dog) ?
There's a man in China that you need to get in touch with.












> I'd rather jerk off for the rest of my life than to suck a dick.






> Okay, but what if you got your dick sucked back?



I'll tell you guys what my dad used to tell me and my brother when we spoke out of turn......

U guys need to keep your cock sucking ideas to yourself.☺


----------



## ForEverAfter

Nice post, willow. I will respond properly later.
In the meantime:

Re: reductio ad absurdum...

Whether or not people - who insist that they wouldn't, under any circumstance, do something - would actually do it, given the right circumstances, is clearly relevant. The example isn't so extreme, in the sense that I've given a real world reference. I might as well have said "would you have sex with a man if you were serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole", rather than the desert island thing. The logic is the same. There are real world examples (plural) of situations in which heterosexual people - who were, previously, homophobic - engage in homosexual sex. Sexuality (or, the flexibility of sexuality, if you prefer), to some extent, at least, appears to be defined by circumstance.

I think people should be more hesitant to suggest "reductio ad absurdum".
I don't see why the rules should be different for satire / conversation.
South Park, for example, often uses it to good effect.
So, why can't I?

Desert island scenarios are fun and, while I accept that this is a philosophy forum, it's populated largely by laymen.



> but what if you got your dick sucked back? I cannot believe you would forgo such glory simply because of a preconception. Or if you did, I would be left feeling really sorry for you...



Me, too... But, I think turk is better than that.
Although he insists that he wouldn't, we all know he would.


----------



## turkalurk

Why depend on someone else for something I have no problem taking care of myself.   I don't have casual sexual relations; I got to feel it for someone.  Its an intimate act that just feels empty without love.  That being said, if I were tricked into falling for a post op tranny I wouldn't beat myself up about it.  I could imagine it'd probably ruin it for me though.  Weird group, I guess its the drugs.  Sometimes you can open your mind and slip too far away.  i have noticed most people who do ecstacy are bisexual.  However, here in america I have only met a handful of openly bisexual men.


----------



## swilow

turk said:
			
		

> Weird group, I guess its the drugs. Sometimes you can open your mind and slip too far away



Nice generalisation. Its very suggestive that you think bisexuality is evidence for that. 



methamaniac said:


> I'll tell you guys what my dad used to tell me and my brother when we spoke out of turn......
> 
> U guys need to keep your cock sucking ideas to yourself.☺



Ha, good laugh :D:D


----------



## ebola?

meth maniac said:
			
		

> U guys need to keep your cock sucking ideas to yourself.☺



But "cock sucking ideas" put into practice mainly benefit others, don't they?  Shouldn't we thus share our cock-sucking ideas?



			
				turk said:
			
		

> Weird group, I guess its the drugs. Sometimes you can open your mind and slip too far away. i have noticed most people who do ecstacy are bisexual. However, here in america I have only met a handful of openly bisexual men.



I don't really see the connection between the two: what does being sexually open (or in many cases, just realistic and reasonable) have to do with the pitfalls of operating with too open of a mind?  Also, statistically, bisexuality is not remotely rare.  At least according to Kinsey, the population prevalence of "homosexual activity" is roughly 25 percent, while gays and lesbians account for under ten percent of the population, suggesting bisexual desire prevalent (but saying little about bisexual identity).  Why you're not interacting with them, I don't know (I live in the wider San Francisco area, so my experience has been different, to say the least ).  However, these statistics are notoriously hard to measure reliably and validly, hence the continued relevance of Kinsey's relatively ancient data.

ebola


----------



## turkalurk

The Washington Post

The Volokh Conspiracy
What percentage of the U.S. population is gay, lesbian or bisexual?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Options
Resize Text Print Article Comments 106
By Eugene Volokh July 15, 2014  
A survey released Tuesday by the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports:

Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].

More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.

The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate. But past data that I’ve seen had suggested that there were about twice as many gay or bisexual men as lesbian or bisexual women; this data suggests that there is no such gender gap.


----------



## murphythecat

and now, look at the correlation between gay porn and those surveys.
its interesting to see that in the most anti-gay states they are the one watching the most gay porn.

I wouldnt trust a survey about such matter.





turkalurk said:


> The Washington Post
> 
> The Volokh Conspiracy
> What percentage of the U.S. population is gay, lesbian or bisexual?
> Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Options
> Resize Text Print Article Comments 106
> By Eugene Volokh July 15, 2014
> A survey released Tuesday by the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports:
> 
> Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].
> 
> More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.
> 
> The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate. But past data that I’ve seen had suggested that there were about twice as many gay or bisexual men as lesbian or bisexual women; this data suggests that there is no such gender gap.


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> and now, look at the correlation between gay porn and those surveys.
> its interesting to see that in the most anti-gay states they are the one watching the most gay porn.
> 
> I wouldnt trust a survey about such matter.



So, I should just take this groups word for that most people are bisexual?


----------



## Jabberwocky

We got some interesting technologies on horizon that could soften many of the reasons people choose a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. In vitro meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat. Would you consider meat grown in a petri dish vegetarian? Assuming it tasted good and was produced from quality/ethical ingredients, would you now consider eating meat? I think a well balanced vegetarian/vegan diet is a healthy life choice. I tried a vegetarian diet for a year and lost weight and felt increased vitality a few months into it. I also felt alienated by the difficulty of maintaining my diet, and the smell of meat of the grill made me feel like I was missing out. Now I eat a primarily vegetarian diet with allowances for meat and fish and am happy with compromise. So anyways, food for thought or thought for food.


----------



## murphythecat

I perfer to look at the statistic that show to what people really masturbate rather then what people say.

the numbers dont lie imo. there clearly more then 2% of the population that look to gay porn.





turkalurk said:


> So, I should just take this groups word for that most people are bisexual?


----------



## turkalurk

murphythecat said:


> I perfer to look at the statistic that show to what people really masturbate rather then what people say.
> 
> the numbers dont lie imo. there clearly more then 2% of the population that look to gay porn.


 ridiculous.  what were numbers?  where is your source?  how were these numbers that don't lie analyzed?


----------



## murphythecat

turkalurk said:


> ridiculous.  what were numbers?  where is your source?  how were these numbers that don't lie analyzed?


I dont entirely trust surveys about this very personal matter. 
kinsey scale seem to show that there's a lot of bisexual. is that true or not, I dont know.

numbers are much less important then I thought. it seems around 5% of porn users watch gay porn.
funny facts, the states where gay marriage are forbidden is the place where there's the biggest gay porn consumers.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=gay+...of+gay+pornography+watched+in+the+usa&start=0


----------



## ForEverAfter

The more you deny this turk, the stranger it looks.
What's your motivation?


----------



## swilow

I didn't think that people found same-sex attraction to be that weird anymore.


----------



## turkalurk

I never said it was weird.  I have gay friends and family members and I love them just the same.  I was only expressing my personal opinion about being a straight person that would find it gross
 for himself to participate in sexual relations with another man.  Since it was claimed that we all are bisexual, I felt the need to counter that assertion by expressing my own sexual preferences.  I don't care what 2 consenting adults want to do with their sexuality.  I'd prefer not to watch them make out, but I could say the same about any unattractive couple.  I simply find it unappealing to observe.


----------



## tantric

murphythecat said:


> I understand what you said here: *What Buddhism describes is universal. *
> I agree its universal
> 
> *Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it
> *
> youve grown accustomed to what exactly?





> No one remembered exactly when the settlers had begun offering sacrifices. Some people claimed the rite had been continued from the time the last Owlbrit died, though no mention of the ritual appeared in Settlement One logs of years one or two. The first mention of it was in the logs of year three. What was certain was that sacrifice had been recommended by the Owlbrit themselves.
> 
> Every word the Owlbrit had spoken from the moment the first settlers met them had been preserved in digifax on the information stages, and among the few intelligible exchanges with the last Owlbrit was the reference to sacrifice.
> 
> "Necessary?" the linguist had asked, relying heavily upon his Alsense translation stage to convey the meaning of the word. The question had been directed to the last surviving Owlbrit in its tiny round house near the temple.
> 
> "Not necessary," the Old One had scraped with his horn-tipped tentacles in a husky whisper. "*What is necessary? Is life necessary? Necessary to what? No, sacrifice is not necessary, it is only recommended. It is a way, a convenience, a kindness*."
> 
> -Sheri Tepper, Raising the Stones



of course buddhism is universal - buddhism is the path to enlightenment. if we discover some new, better path, then we just call that 'buddhism' too. as an american buddhist, i don't focus on the teachings of the ancients, nor do i try to ape asian disciplines. it is my job to create american buddhism, something new and unique. though i understand the decay of the dharma, there is a contrary process whereby it is somewhat renewed as it encounters new situations. i'm hoping for scientific buddhism, but for me, personally - i'm a mf jedi. 1,000 yrs from now, in the Intro to American Buddhism class, what film will they show on the first day? right.


----------



## swilow

tantric said:
			
		

> in the Intro to American Buddhism class, what film will they show on the first day? right.



Dune? 



turkalurk said:


> I never said it was weird.



I was responding to Foreverafter. I read a subtext in his post which I thought was maybe not valid these days, that denial of homosexual attraction can indicate latent homosexuality or something otherwise 'to hide'. I'm not sure if that is what he meant though.

In truth, quite a lot of people still find same-sex relations (especially between men) to be "unappealing" as you say. My best friend was "disappointed" when I told him of my gay experiences but was unable to explain why (and fortunately got over it). For example, why would you not wish to see two men making out? How does it effect you?


----------



## ForEverAfter

Whether or not it's an indication of repressed homosexual tendencies, it's strange to insist repeatedly (for no reason) that you're absolutely straight and that you'd never compromise that even if it means that you won't have sex for the rest of your life. Nobody else is repeating that they're straight over and over again. So, I'm left to speculate as to why that is. What is his motivation to concretely establish his sexuality in the context of a discussion about sexuality as a spectrum? There's a lot of guys who - at some point in their lives - might insist that they'd rather die than have a same-sex encounter. And then, through unexpected circumstances, they have a change of perspective. Whether or not it is in jail, or it stems from a 3-way. Turk can insist all he likes, but he doesn't know how he'd react in all possible circumstances. To insist otherwise indicates a serious hatred and/or fear of homosexual tendencies (whether they are his, or someone else's)... But, it also suggests that there's something wrong with homosexuality (from his perspective); which he confirmed by calling same-sex encounters as gross and relating it to drug abuse.

As for "he doth protest too much" being applied to homophobia to indicate latent homosexual tendencies...
I'm not sure why you don't think it's valid. It is not proof. But, it can be an indication.
There has to be some reason that people object to certain sexual orientations.



> why would you not wish to see two men making out? How does it effect you?



Indeed.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> Dune?
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Foreverafter. I read a subtext in his post which I thought was maybe not valid these days, that denial of homosexual attraction can indicate latent homosexuality or something otherwise 'to hide'. I'm not sure if that is what he meant though.
> 
> In truth, quite a lot of people still find same-sex relations (especially between men) to be "unappealing" as you say. My best friend was "disappointed" when I told him of my gay experiences but was unable to explain why (and fortunately got over it). For example, why would you not wish to see two men making out? How does it effect you?



It affects me the same as it would two really big ugly fat people making out.  Its just not something I want to see.  Its like TMI.   I feel too much public affection is inappropriate no matter who it is.   I also don't like talking to people on the phone while they take shit.  It just seems gross to me.


----------



## tantric

willow11 said:


> Dune?



are you aware that DXM is the water of life? it's a poison your body metabolizes into a psychedelic that lets you see through time. in any case, 1.2% of the population of New Zealand didn't indicate their religions as 'Kwisatz Haderach' - they chose 'Jedi'.  personally, i'm one the fence - i do have this t-shirt:





but i also practice swatting hovering carpenter bees out of the air with a broom handle...though i'm not up to doing it blindfolded. OTOH, i can snatch them out of the air with my bare hand, which is more advanced, as you'll get stung if you mistakenly grab a female instead of a male, and when you do, you must release her without harm, just like you do the others. and bow to them, of course. that's jedi training. besides, as mr. miyagi said "man who can catch fly with chopstick accomplish anything".


----------



## swilow

ForEverAfter said:


> As for "he doth protest too much" being applied to homophobia to indicate latent homosexual tendencies...
> I'm not sure why you don't think it's valid. It is not proof. But, it can be an indication.
> There has to be some reason that people object to certain sexual orientations.



I think it is valid, but it almost feels like a cliche. And I had a naive idea that maybe people don't feel the need to suppress those sort of feelings these days. 

I suppose I am being simplistic and thinking that because I find the idea positively normal, other people should too. I didn't think people still bothered finding this sort of shit disgusting. Conservatism is still pretty powerful.


----------



## swilow

I've just killed a whole bunch of pretty silly posts. 

Can we move on? 

Its fine to go off-topic a bit in this thread- I think the discussion has become interesting up until the last few pages. But not _that_ off-topic.


----------



## ForEverAfter

> maybe people don't feel the need to suppress those sort of feelings these days... I suppose I am being simplistic and thinking that because I find the idea positively normal, other people should too.



You said your best friend was disappointed, but he got over it... Some people don't though. I assume you kept your same-sex experiences from your friend because you were afraid of how he might react? I don't think it's realistic to say that people don't have good reasons - sometimes - to feel like they need to hide their sexuality. In some parts of the world, it's still illegal to be gay.



> I've just killed a whole bunch of pretty silly posts.
> 
> Can we move on?
> 
> Its fine to go off-topic a bit in this thread- I think the discussion has become interesting up until the last few pages. But not that off-topic.



Agreed. Let's move on.


----------



## tantric

moving on, or back

you can't really classify buddhism as a religion or philosophy until you understand the deep meaning of 'dharma':



> Dharma has the Sanskrit root dhri, which means "that which upholds" or "that without which nothing can stand" or "that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe." Dharma encompasses the natural, innate behavior of things, duty, law, ethics, virtue, etc. Every entity in the cosmos has its particular dharma -- from the electron, which has the dharma to move in a certain manner, to the clouds, galaxies, plants, insects, and of course, man. Man's understanding of the dharma of inanimate things is what we now call physics.



atheists have a fit if you say atheism is their religion, because they define religions as 'believing in woo'. but without question, everyone has a dharma - its the guiding principles of your life, how you view the world, your epistemology, cosmology, theology, eschatology, teleology, ethics, etc. buddhism is not just a philosophy or a religion, the distinction is false, it's dharma. in some cultures the powers that be highjacked it during the process of solidifying a multi-ethnic nation and turned it into state religion - that happens. it's still buddhism and part of the path is knowing better than to get up in the air about labels.


----------



## swilow

^Perhaps wrong thread?  I'm getting them all mixed up too...



ForEverAfter said:


> You said your best friend was disappointed, but he got over it... Some people don't though. I assume you kept your same-sex experiences from your friend because you were afraid of how he might react? I don't think it's realistic to say that people don't have good reasons - sometimes - to feel like they need to hide their sexuality. In some parts of the world, it's still illegal to be gay.



Good points actually. Its easy to forget that tbh.

I never really concealed my experiences from my friend. They happened mainly before I met him, but I certainly didn't tell him about them straight away. I tend not to discuss my sex life all that much anyway, so it took a while to come up. He didn't express disappointment to me straight away though, he seemed to accept it. We were on methylone together one night and he told me that my revelation surprised him and made him see me differently, but that his disappointment was more in himself for reacting that way. It was as awkward as any deep, confusing empathogen-chat could be which was probably a good thing


----------



## tantric

okay, so you've had samesex but you didn't tell your friend because then he would want to sleep with you and expect it? that kind of expectation only happens when a guy just comes out, or before. he can't really conceptualize much but the sex, and hasn't actually learned how to be attracted to men or what he likes. it happens with us too - a kid comes and thinks because you're gay and confident that he gets to have you. it's also part of being expected to be reward for coming out. but you friend has no right to expect that, at all...but the shit's your fault for hiding yourself from him. look, when someone asks if you're gay or bi, say what christopher maloni said in Oz, "i do what i have to". 

hell, there's a guy at my zen temple now i'm pretty sure has the hots for me. it's wrong of me, but i'm a trickster and its how i roll, so i ain't gone tell him shit about being gay. "i do what i gotta", the emotionally wounded excon.....just so he can have the experience of seducing a straight guy. and i'll make it hot, too, build it up for months. after, i'll tell him, and i'm pretty sure he'll hate me, but i intend it as a gift and if he can't deal with that, there's no possible way he could be in a relationship with me. now, is *that* evil?


----------



## swilow

^Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote?


----------



## tantric

i looked back on the thread, couldn't find it. not for lack of trying, but i assumed i got deleted with 'a bunch of silly posts'. link? sorry, tried, remove foot from mouth...


----------



## murphythecat

tantric said:


> moving on, or back
> 
> you can't really classify buddhism as a religion or philosophy until you understand the deep meaning of 'dharma':
> 
> 
> 
> atheists have a fit if you say atheism is their religion, because they define religions as 'believing in woo'. but without question, everyone has a dharma - its the guiding principles of your life, how you view the world, your epistemology, cosmology, theology, eschatology, teleology, ethics, etc. buddhism is not just a philosophy or a religion, the distinction is false, it's dharma. in some cultures the powers that be highjacked it during the process of solidifying a multi-ethnic nation and turned it into state religion - that happens. it's still buddhism and part of the path is knowing better than to get up in the air about labels.


 I belief its simply by lack of information. It takes quite a bit of reading to understand what the dharma really is. Before that, people have all sort of prejudice and misinformation. You need to know a lot about the system in order to be able to accept and understand what the buddhism/dharma really is. Its not something you can explain in a hour!



once you understand it intellectually, its a very logical and reasonable, very detailed approach to describe reality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/


----------



## ebola?

_Off-topic:_



			
				willow11 said:
			
		

> I think it is valid, but it almost feels like a cliche.



It is a cliche (I think it caught on not only due to Freud's influence but also because of how conceptually concise it is in its explanation), but there are some experimental data coming out that corroborate such.  Namely, they have run experiments involving a wide demographic of men across sexual orientations where various attitudes about sexuality were surveyed and then penile enlargement was measured (via a sensing elastic band) as a variety of pornographic images were shown.  Among stated heterosexual males, there was a strong positive correlation between level of homophobia as indicated by survey (so explicit beliefs) and penile enlargement in response to gay male pornography.  Yes, homophobic men became more aroused in response to gay porn.

Data on penile enlargement also indicated a high proportion response to gay porn among stated heterosexuals in general (I forget the specifics, but a reliable response ranging from mild to moderate appeared in somewhere between 10-50 percent of heterosexual participants), indicating a much higher rate of bisexual desire than is indicated by self-identification.  I think this relates to what I consider to be a key beginning question of understanding human sexuality: given that we are so similar genetically to Bonobo Chimps, why aren't we rampantly bisexual like them?  Bonobos are extremely promiscuous and often trade sexual favors for minor help from others, or to cement social bonding in mundane, routine ways (eg, you groomed me, so I'll give you a blow job).  

I think that part of the answer lies in the importance of familial lines among humans, in terms of both cultural meaning and as anchoring the transfer of social power and wealth.  This already presents an element of heteronormativity, since familial transfer of social resources is linked intimately to procreation.  But I also think that unrelated aspects of our homophobic culture play a significant role.  I think that a lot of straight men are compelled to reinterpret, repress, etc. all same sex desires as they pop up, in an attempt to affirm their heterosexuality, as is socially desired.  This often manifests as social ridicule of perceived "sissies" (particularly during adolescence), particularly those to whom one is attracted, as these anxiogenic feelings are deflected into aggression.  This is most manifest during adolescent development, from middle school to high school, but these practices continue (especially among less emotionally developed men, I think).



> Good points actually. Its easy to forget that tbh.



This points to a more general question: how can one best be an ally when a friend comes out to you?  I've approached this matter through a process of trial and error, trying to begin from a standpoint of compassion, and trying to listen more than speak, but I still find the process a bit tricky to navigate.  Why is it difficult?  Well, I think that a major reason is that my friend's sexual orientation won't be particularly important to me (they're still my same friend, after all), but their coming out has entailed overcoming difficult emotional obstacles (and a good bit of courage on their part) and facing a large array of strong social responses to their sexual orientation from others on a day to day level (warranted or not, and even if just imagined, if they haven't yet come out to many others first), so it is important not to minimize these psychological and social obstacles he/she faces. . .

ebola


----------



## ForEverAfter

Excellent post.



			
				ebola? said:
			
		

> these practices continue... especially among less emotionally developed men



Bingo.


----------



## Xorkoth

Right on ebola.


----------



## swilow

tantric said:


> i looked back on the thread, couldn't find it. not for lack of trying, but i assumed i got deleted with 'a bunch of silly posts'. link? sorry, tried, remove foot from mouth...



About 3 posts back


----------



## ForEverAfter

O/T


*NSFW*: 



Just quickly, on the idea of being disgusted by people making out in public (or thinking that "public affection is inappropriate")... I'm not disgusted when I see ugly people making out or when I see fat people making out (or old people, for that matter). Unless I'm being voyeuristic, and sexualizing them, I don't see why it would bother me. And I don't think ugly people, fat people, old people or homosexuals should feel like they need to hide; why should certain people be given more consideration when it comes to displaying affection towards each other in public? Doesn't make any sense to me, at all. It's extraordinarily archaic to suggest otherwise, unless I'm missing something substantial... Like ebola said, it reminds me of high school students / sitcom characters saying: "Ew, there were these old people and they were, like, totally making out!" I expect more from people on this forum.


----------



## tantric

i don't feel disgusted when i see two girls making out. now, i'm not wild about close ups on the vajay-jay, i am gay, but still, i can watch anything with clinical detachment. my one time experience play with breasts was okay - kinda nice, in a mommy way, i guess. what i'm saying is that i'm as far gay as it goes - i tried, after i knew i was gay, to get with a girl just because it's not fair i can't - but i can't, shit don't work. that's gay. i would assume straight is the same, but disgust? revulsion? no. that's not part of it.

i hate making assumption about other people's sexualities, but there are times when i trust my instincts better than another's self-awareness.


----------



## Ninae

This is a good site of recipes for high-end vegan food.

http://www.hellodelicious.info/

I'm especially interested in raw food, or food that is high in Prana. I eat mostly fresh fruit juices or smoothies, anyway, as I crave the life-force. It just gives you more vitality which makes you feel better and gives you energy (one reason children are so happy is they have so much vitality at their disposal). Especially when you also do Yoga or some kind of exercise that supports it. 

The truth is that it is possible to live of vegan food and not miss anything in terms of taste or nutrition, it would even be an improvement for the majority, but it takes a lot of time and resources. If you could afford to spend as much as it takes and pay someone to do it for you there wouldn't be a problem, but it's almost impossible for the average person to prepare food for their family like that.


----------



## Xorkoth

tantric said:


> i don't feel disgusted when i see two girls making out. now, i'm not wild about close ups on the vajay-jay, i am gay, but still, i can watch anything with clinical detachment. my one time experience play with breasts was okay - kinda nice, in a mommy way, i guess. what i'm saying is that i'm as far gay as it goes - i tried, after i knew i was gay, to get with a girl just because it's not fair i can't - but i can't, shit don't work. that's gay. i would assume straight is the same, but disgust? revulsion? no. that's not part of it.
> 
> i hate making assumption about other people's sexualities, but there are times when i trust my instincts better than another's self-awareness.



The hardest I ever got hit on was by a guy, I went to a bar with this girl I was on a date with and I didn't realize it was primarily a gay bar (it wouldn't have made me hesitate to go had I known though).  He laid it on so thick, I decided to just let him continue until the girl came up to me (I was ordering drinks) and he was like, no, are you serious?  Damn it!   It was nothing but a huge ego boost and I thanked him.  But like tantric said, that shit don't work.  Well, I've never tried, but thinking about the male body doesn't turn me on in the slightest... I'm just into women, it's how it is.  There have been times I wished I was gay because it seemed like so much trouble to deal with women (it was really just the woman I was with though).  I will admit the idea of sex or kissing or anything with a guy does seem a bit repulsive to me personally, I wouldn't try it just because it doesn't seem right for me.  It doesn't disgust me at all to see two guys like that though, I just feel happy for them.


----------



## Ninae

This is a more spiritual take on these things.

http://onehart.info/wp-content/uploads/Eating-For-Ascension-by-Meg-Davis-PDF.pdf

I also like some of these ideas.


----------



## Ninae

Finally something from the World Health Organisation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-cigarettes-global-health-chiefs-declare.html

I've been waiting for this for a while but the meat industries are so powerful. Even if it should be obvious processed meat is one of the most cancer-causing things out there. Big suprise.


----------



## Shamandrums

*It's unethical to industrially produce animals for slaughter both for the environment & due to the cruel conditions that lead up to the killing*. The methods alone are disgusting no matter how you wanna slice it! *The other carnivores *are not something causing an environmental & cruelty apocalypse, they kill & eat what they need, waste little, largely kill fast & meanwhile their prey live a life in nature. Last I checked, the over consumption of meat by humans is a health disaster to oneself. Killing an Elk for your own use, may have an "ethical" basis where production doesn't & it lives it's life in nature. The Slaughter itself, savagely (in)human is likely the 1st relief these creatures receive since birth. The fact of being raised as the big corps do, produces massive suffering, whether chained, caged for life, force fed, I know 1st hand from a large family of ranchers/chicken producers I personally can attest it is f-d up.  

Methane, 25x more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon & the 100,000,000's head of cattle alone the US, Brazil, other big producers create this unsustainable greenhouse hoofprint let alone via the carbon needed moving the product & feed around. The projections of the required grazing land to keep up with demand, is not available & further unsustainable. This is grain used as feed could help the 100,000,000's starving people but instead goes to cattle etc. That it's has slowed, the burning of the Amazon basin for grazing, & in the end still leads to loss of Amazonian soils, which are especially incapable to hold the together for more than a few years, after a thin layer of cheap potash produced from burns, blows away forever, this eludes all common sense. That you can bet we’ve lost cancer cures & others while creating more cancer.    

The failure of the eastern fisheries of Canada is also a lesson not learned (outside BC, & there just barely), as the loss of 90% of fish species traditionally used world-wide for human consumption means what? We stop at 95%?

I became a veggie, partly for what I believe are spiritual/humanistic reasons & also because I hate the taste of meat, it's the smoke & spices that make food awesome. My GF turned my onto vegan-ism & now I miss no food at all, as even mock back bacon is so real, I use it to fool people over & over. (Yves makes everything from bologna, pepperoni, sausages, ground round, to chicken nuggets not to be told from the taste/texture/look/convenience one grew up with & not the early veggie burgers experiences many people had, they have it down now.) BBQ it & you will miss no taste.  It not sustainable, it's unethical to produce as it done, & we have a choice, & not long to embrace it.
*Thanks to the thread’s author! *


----------



## Ninae

I guess I've become a lacto-fruitarian. Since Christmas I've only been eating fruit and some wholemilk products. I seem to mostly want fruit and lived nearly only on fruit juice for 6 months. But I need some more nutrients so I drink some milk and cream.


----------



## Jabberwocky

Without being super strict about labels, I'm predominantly vegan, though when out and about I'll have the occasional slice of pizza with cheese on it or pastry with butter (it's really hard to find vegan options on the road that are satisfying). When I go to the grocery store I avoid all animal product. On thanksgiving my family talked me into having some turkey. I ate my fill but honestly didn't feel like " oh man, this is what I've been missing"  or feel bad about it either. It was just meh, I like eating my way better. Saying I'm eating a predominantly vegan diet often elicits humorous reactions from people. It's got more stigma then saying "I'm gay" to the people around these parts. 

I had to watch out about carbs. When I first transitioned into this diet I ate a lot of rice and that made me hungry all the time and I started to gain weight. Eventually I moderated carb intake and started drink a hemp protein shake every morning w/ banana and almond milk. Love it and it's normalized my metabolism. I eat a ton of veggies. what I don't eat I drink. Love my nutri-ninja blender for making vegetable smoothies. Takes about a month for every change in diet to take hold, but how I'm doing it now has dramatically increased my energy, I've lost weight, and I don't feel like I crave food but when I consume it I get a feeling of joy. To each their own but I'm really enjoying this change.


----------



## Foreigner

Lately I've been trying the SCD diet, and it's been an educational experience.

I can't live without meat as I'm suffering from broad spectrum deficiency and bodily degeneration, and my body can't process vegetable products in their raw forms right now. A vegetarian or vegan diet would kill me right now. Just having bone marrow broth always available is so important and I am grateful to the animals that died so I could try to experience some healing.


----------



## tantric

Foreigner said:


> Lately I've been trying the SCD diet, and it's been an educational experience.
> 
> I can't live without meat as I'm suffering from broad spectrum deficiency and bodily degeneration, and my body can't process vegetable products in their raw forms right now. A vegetarian or vegan diet would kill me right now. Just having bone marrow broth always available is so important and I am grateful to the animals that died so I could try to experience some healing.



do you have crohn's disease? otherwise i'm calling pure BS on this. cook your veggies, then, wtf? 



> A vegetarian or vegan diet would kill me right now.



are you a fucking vampire?


----------



## Jabberwocky

Why you gotta go there man? I'm hoping it's just ignorance on your part, but man, seems like you make it a habit. Whatever, people gonna treat you like a petulant child if that's what you're putting out there. It's not worth commenting on really, except to say it got under my skin some, and that's not easy to do. Please enjoy your soup Foreigner and get better for us now.


----------



## tantric

levelsBeyond said:


> Why you gotta go there man? I'm hoping it's just ignorance on your part, but man, seems like you make it a habit. Whatever, people gonna treat you like a petulant child if that's what you're putting out there. It's not worth commenting on really, except to say it got under my skin some, and that's not easy to do. Please enjoy your soup Foreigner and get better for us now.



what are you talking about? ignorance? okay, look, there's two kinds of information, science and superstition. i used to call it 'voodoo', but that's an insult to a deep tradition. besides, i'm a big fan of Erzulie.



> I can't live without meat as I'm suffering from broad spectrum deficiency and bodily degeneration


sounds like superstitious nonsense. in my own, charming way, i'm asking for medical details to support this. "broad spectrum deficiency" doesn't mean anything at all - it could mean that he's deficient in  iodine, iron, zinc, calcium, selenium, fluorine, and vitamins A, B6, B12, B1, B2, B3, and C all at once, meaning he'd been eating nothing but cardboard and tapwater for about 2 yrs.  Meat wouldn't cure that, but one of those horse vitamin shots would:





I take 'bodily degeneration' to mean becoming a couch potato. You can live on vitamin pills and sugar water for months. SUGAR is the fuel your body burns, and its vastly easier to convert to energy than meat is. Using proteins as a primary energy source can't possibly be healthy or easy on your system. All this is SCIENCE - not my opinion and no, it doesn't work differently on different people. That's the whole point of it being science.


----------



## Jabberwocky

^ I was more speaking to the fact that one of our most prolific and intelligent Bluelighers is on chemotherapy right now and bravely facing their own mortality. You chose a crummy way to make your point


----------



## tantric

People on chemo don't need to have silly, unhealthy diets based on nonsense. they need a dietitian. i live with my 23yo niece, who is also on chemo for anaplastic astrocytoma (incurable nasty brain cancer). now, if you're at a state where you can only keep down certain foods, then by all means, eat them. the bone marrow broth is probably good. but being on chemo doesn't change the fundamental facts about the human metabolism, and going on weird binge diets will NOT help. if you're fighting cancer, your ONLY chance is science. it's a cruel master, i know that, but going for non-medical treatments as a coping mechanism is deadly.

OTOH, if i were in my niece's place, i'd refuse any further treatment after the first round. just go out and LIVE and when it comes back, euthanasia. death isn't frightening, but what cancer can do to a person, helpless and trapped in the medical-industrial nightmare, is beyond hellish. all of you will think this is completely insane, but when her time comes, if she's still afraid, i'll pass with her. to me, that'd be a satisfying and meaningful use of my life. fuck, what's being a shaman about, if not being a friend of death?


----------



## Ninae

The only sugar you should have is the sugar in fruit.


----------



## turkalurk

I suppose we should just kill off all the cows so we can save the world from cow farts!  

So the egoic sociopath thinks he's a shaman?  good laughs


----------



## Ninae

What are you doing back, Turk?


----------



## belligerent drunk

I believe the question of veganism/whatever is not a question of ethics, but of plain and simple sustainability. I think it's a well-established fact that given our population, there is no way we can reasonably provide food in the form of meat for all of us for an indefinite amount of time. Producing meat as opposed to plant matter is, dare I say, orders of magnitude less efficient, in addition to worsening the problem of global warming with the methane. That is the only logical reason I see for veganism.

On the other hand, ethics is purely a human-made concept, meaning that it lacks objectivity and is not absolute. What is ethical for me may not be ethical for you and vice versa. The reason we care about "ethics" regarding the (very) poor conditions the animals are cultivated in is because we can "relate" to them, as they're animals just like us and feel pain similarly to us. The good thing about it is that nobody gives a fuck. The animal lives a horrible life and dies a horrible death, and that's it. Nothing changes in the universe and nothing, really, is hurt. The only reason we're so butthurt about it is because we imagine what we'd feel like in those conditions, and for evidence we take the apparent suffering of said animals. By no means am I saying that I have no regard for another animal's life; on the contrary, I often can't stand watching an animal suffer and I try to do my best when in such a situation to help the sufferer. But then again I acknowledge the fact that it's just my mind playing tricks on me.

If you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, you will see right away that ethics is not something the rest of them consider and think about. We've just got too big of a brain that we started worrying about all kinds of superficial shit. Oh well, enough of this bullshit, nobody is going to agree with or even take this point of view seriously anyway.

With that said, I know I'm a part of the environmental problem being a meat eater, but I don't have the emotional capacity to switch to veganism right now. And if I did, what would that change anyway?


----------



## turkalurk

considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten.  So vegans are anti-animals.  fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.


----------



## belligerent drunk

turkalurk said:


> considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten.  So vegans are anti-animals.  fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.



That a joke? While it's true that that particular animal wouldn't have lived were it not for the cultivators, but do you really think such a life is worth living? In any case, I somehow doubt most animals even value their life on an emotional or sentimental level like we do. Most are just machines responding to the environment in a pre-programmed way, I don't think many reflect back on their life and/or are thankful for being alive, or understand what life is at all, they just don't have the cranial capacity to do so.


----------



## turkalurk

We are all just living beings responding to life in a preprogrammed way. I have seen many cows grazing in pastures and they didn't seem to be suffering to me. they seemed pretty content with their existence. I think all life is an experience worth living. I value all forms of life and am all for fighting to stop these unethical business practices that result in cruelty and suffering by developing and enforcing stricter regulations. I believe the solution will be growing meat in labs, or maybe even genetically altering a plant to grow muscle fiber. Thats our value as humans. We might push this world to the brink but we will find solutions that will make it all worth it. It will all work out as it should, with or without us. I'm just here to enjoy the ride and appreciate the view.


----------



## belligerent drunk

My apologies, I assumed we were talking about the modern "high-efficiency" farms, not the old-fashioned pastures. In that case I definitely agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with letting the animals live in an enclosed area, but still free enough to do and eat as they like, and then killing them when it's time.

I don't know what the solution will be, or if there will be one at all. I guess we'll just have to see; I personally don't care or stress much over it. I think one possible solution (veganism) is a lot easier than developing lab-meat and such, if only executed right. My ex was and is a vegan and when we lived together, I pretty much was on a vegan diet as well and I can't say I could complain much. For me what matters is the way the stuff I eat tastes and feels, and looks. I don't care if it's meat or plant-based, so well-made vegan food is just as good as meat for me. I believe I'm not the only one.


----------



## drug_mentor

turkalurk said:


> considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten.  So vegans are anti-animals.  fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.



A huge proportion of the land on earth is being used to raise livestock or grow crops for the sole purpose of feeding said livestock. Whilst it is certainly true that more pigs, cows and chickens are alive due to human consumption of meat, what you are not considering is the natural wildlife whose populations are being dramatically reduced in order to clear this land to graze cattle and other livestock.

One example relates to the way that the meat industry essentially receives federal subsidies by being allowed to graze their cattle on federal land. A large number of predatory animals on federal land, like wolves and coyotes, are being culled at alarming numbers in order to accommodate the ever growing livestock industry. Another is the huge areas of natural habitat which are being cleared to feed the livestock industry. My understanding is that a very significant percentage of rain forest deforestation in the Amazon is taking place in order to grow soybean for the sole purpose of feeding livestock.

The fact is that livestock farming does not increase the number of living animals, it creates a largely disproportionate number of animals which are considered desirable to humans whilst eliminating other types of animals which either threaten or add nothing to the commercial status quo. I personally believe that this short-sighted elimination of biodiversity is having a significant negative impact on our environment. I also believe that the wild animals who are being eliminated generally have a better quality of life than animals which are raised for human consumption.


----------



## spacejunk

turkalurk said:


> I have seen many cows grazing in pastures and they didn't seem to be suffering to me. they seemed pretty content with their existence. I think all life is an experience worth living.


How quaint.
You ever seen a pig living in a sow stall that spends her life in a cage so small she can't even turn around?

This is either a fascinating of display of romanticised cognitive dissonance, or you're just trying to get a rise out of people.
My money is on the latter.

One of the things i've noticed since i stopped eating most animal products is how much more delicious vegan food is.  
Call me a hedonist, but in my experience it's absolutely true.  

It never ceases to amaze me how bothered some people seem to get by the concept of (other folks) eating this way, but since i drastically cut my intake of dairy products (especially) i've noticed a lot of health improvements and find eating even more pleasurable than i did previously. It's great.

But i don't preach or advocate diets to people, because i know how patronising that is, because meat-eaters have tried that shit on with me for years, so i know how tedious and futile it is - plus i don't care.

But calling vegans "anti-animals"  is one of the silliest things i've read on the subject...which really is quite an achievement.


----------



## turkalurk

spacejunk said:


> How quaint.
> You ever seen a pig living in a sow stall that spends her life in a cage so small she can't even turn around?



no, have you?  haven't seen any of these places mentioned by vegans.  never seen any sweat shops with child labor either.  Do i doubt there existence?  nope.    will i quit buying clothes altogether because some businesses utilize unethical practices?  probably not.  Do you still drive a vehicle or use electricity powered by coal?  I do.  Just being who the world made me to be.  I put my faith in the world that things will work out as they ought to, whatever that may mean.


----------



## Ninae

My dad works in the control sector of the meat industry. Trust me, it's ugly. 

My grandfather was a butcher who spent 12 hours a day cutting the throats of animals (he wasn't very delicate).

Me and my sisters became vegetarian as soon as we could to make up for the bad ancestral karma.


----------



## spacejunk

turkalurk said:


> no, have you?  haven't seen any of these places mentioned by vegans.  never seen any sweat shops with child labor either.  Do i doubt there existence?  nope.    will i quit buying clothes altogether because some businesses utilize unethical practices?  probably not.  Do you still drive a vehicle or use electricity powered by coal?  I do.  Just being who the world made me to be.  I put my faith in the world that things will work out as they ought to, whatever that may mean.


You've never heard vegan activists discuss the cruelty of modern farming practices?
Perhaps you haven't paid much attention?

I think you have a pretty defeatist attitude, but you're entitled to it.
For what it's worth, i try to spend my money in as ethical a manner as possible.

Just because not every choice we make as consumers is ethically sound, does not mean we should give up on the idea of making choices we agree with entirely - that doesnt make sense to me.

But anyway, the point i was making was that i have always hated eating meat, and i'm happier and healthier generally since i started eating predominantly vegan.


----------



## swilow

The fact that pretty much all of us do utilise unsustatinable and environmentally damaging practises doesn't negate the value of trying to do this less. In fact, it makes me think we should strive even harder to balance out our negative actions. I used to consider veganism to be an extreme lifestyle choice but if you look at our society and its culture of unending economic growth, fueled by consumption and built-in obsolescence and the fact that this culture is global, I really wonder what actually is more extreme. 

I've seen that argument before, that the huge proliferation of livestock animals is a good thing as it gives animals life they otherwise wouldn't have had. There is a huge assumption here, that life is something that is always desirable.  Obviously, I cannot ask a cow what they think of this idea, so I have to extrapolate based on my own feelings. I would much 'prefer' to not exist than to live and die with pain and suffering. The male chicken, crushed to death in the first day of its life, has no reason to be grateful for that brief and violent existence. People might be unwilling to extend empathy to animals due to a belief that they do not suffer, but this is incorrect.

The fact is that rearing animals in factory farm conditions causes extreme suffering. This is borne out by science one does not need to directly witness to appreciate. All animals, farmed, wild and middle-class, evolved traits over millions of years which increased their chance of survival. This might be limbs, organs, senses and, in mammals at least, internal states or emotions. Emotions that contribute to surivival are usually experienced very intensely. Evolutionary psychology tells us that the traits we evolved in the wild still persist subjectively even in circumstances where there is no objective use for them. One doesn't lose wings immeditately upon being prevented from flying. Thus it can be argued that farm animals must have evolved emotional states which effect their survival, just like we did and that, intentionally, in a factory farm, these emotional needs are never fulfilled, are always unrequited. It can be argued, and validly, that non-humans do not suffer as intensely as we, due to their lower intelligence and self-awareness. It cannot be argued that they do not suffer at all.


----------



## belligerent drunk

willow11 said:


> The fact is that rearing animals in factory farm conditions causes extreme suffering. This is borne out by science one does not need to directly witness to appreciate. All animals, farmed, wild and middle-class, evolved traits over millions of years which increased their chance of survival. This might be limbs, organs, senses and, in mammals at least, internal states or emotions. Emotions that contribute to surivival are usually experienced very intensely. Evolutionary psychology tells us that the traits we evolved in the wild still persist subjectively even in circumstances where there is no objective use for them. One doesn't lose wings immeditately upon being prevented from flying. Thus it can be argued that farm animals must have evolved emotional states which effect their survival, just like we did and that, intentionally, in a factory farm, these emotional needs are never fulfilled, are always unrequited. It can be argued, and validly, that non-humans do not suffer as intensely as we, due to their lower intelligence and self-awareness. It cannot be argued that they do not suffer at all.



I don't think anyone can argue that animals do not feel pain and other forms of suffering. It would make no sense to argue that, because as you correctly pointed out, evolution shaped us and other animals to feel such stuff in order to avoid risks/damage/death. Although you have to understand that it's simply a survival mechanism based on chemistry, no more than that. All of those things could be thought of as a form of more complex reflexes. You don't think the frog leg is alive, feels pain or has emotions and/or soul, when it twitches as current is applied to it, you know that it's just how the (albeit complex) mechanism works.


----------



## swilow

belligerent drunk said:


> I don't think anyone can argue that animals do not feel pain and other forms of suffering. It would make no sense to argue that, because as you correctly pointed out, evolution shaped us and other animals to feel such stuff in order to avoid risks/damage/death.



I was trying to emphasise just how harmful the factory-farm environment is to animals. I understand that it is widely accepted that farm animals can suffer intensely... Its an idea that motivates me.




> Although you have to understand that it's simply a survival mechanism based on chemistry, no more than that. All of those things could be thought of as a form of more complex reflexes. You don't think the frog leg is alive, feels pain or has emotions and/or soul, when it twitches as current is applied to it, you know that it's just how the (albeit complex) mechanism works.



I don't really see your point here. Again, it is obvious that an animal's experience of suffering is mediated by chemistry and biology, the same way that ours is. How else would this stuff work? This doesn't nullify the intensity of subjective suffering for animals. Everything a living creature experiences, humans and non-human, is related to biology and chemistry and electrical processes in the body. This reductionist view does nothing to negate my own suffering. This idea does even less when considering the suffering of animals who have no capacity for awareness of the biological underpinnings of their experience. It makes no difference how an effect is mediated. All that needs to be considered is the subjective experience of it. For me, the evidence that factory farming causes extreme suffering for indivudals is enough for me to not participate in it. And even then this is not the most profound reason to abstain from consuming farmed animals with the environmental reasons being much more compelling for me.


----------



## belligerent drunk

willow11 said:


> I don't really see your point here. Again, it is obvious that an animal's experience of suffering is mediated by chemistry and biology, the same way that ours is. How else would this stuff work? This doesn't nullify the intensity of subjective suffering for animals. Everything a living creature experiences, humans and non-human, is related to biology and chemistry and electrical processes in the body. This reductionist view does nothing to negate my own suffering. This idea does even less when considering the suffering of animals who have no capacity for awareness of the biological underpinnings of their experience. It makes no difference how an effect is mediated. All that needs to be considered is the subjective experience of it. For me, the evidence that factory farming causes extreme suffering for indivudals is enough for me to not participate in it. And even then this is not the most profound reason to abstain from consuming farmed animals with the environmental reasons being much more compelling for me.



Subjective for whom? My point was that we humans tend to extrapolate a whole lot from our own subjective experiences. What follows from considering that living organisms operate on chemistry is that there is no objective feelings or anything like that, only subjective ones. And then it most often makes no sense to observe humans and then apply the same principles to other animals. Let me give you an example. If you poke an insect, it will react. It has tactile receptor system and some kind of nervous system, so it is able to react to touch and all that. Does it feel pain when you break its leg off? Yeah, it may seem that it is struggling like there's no tomorrow, but do you really believe that it's thinking "god damn that fucking human about to kill me. I don't want to lose my mother, my wife, my baby boy! Please don't do this!"?

What I'm saying is that animals with less complex nervous systems may behave and react similarly to us, but it doesn't automatically mean they are having the same subjective experience. That is what I mean by most of them being "machines", not much more than that. We are too, except we also developed an over-sized brain so we're worrying about shit all the time. I don't believe most animals have the cognitive abilities and memory capacity to remember and analyze their life, or think about what's happening in the present as we do. Until you've been inside a cow's head, I'm going to be skeptical of this. Of course, as far as my first-hand experience goes, I cannot stand animals suffering and I do my best to help them avoid it, as I've pointed out before. I'm just not sure if there's sufficient reason for people to lose their shit over this subject like some of them do (not talking about you here).

I agree with your last sentence, there is very convincing evidence that meat-based diet is unsustainable for human kind. Which is why I'm glad and support your veganism. "Ethics" are secondary at best, because it's all subjective as I've explained.


----------



## swilow

belligerent drunk said:


> Subjective for whom? My point was that we humans tend to extrapolate a whole lot from our own subjective experiences. What follows from considering that living organisms operate on chemistry is that there is no objective feelings or anything like that, only subjective ones. And then it most often makes no sense to observe humans and then apply the same principles to other animals. Let me give you an example. If you poke an insect, it will react. It has tactile receptor system and some kind of nervous system, so it is able to react to touch and all that. Does it feel pain when you break its leg off? Yeah, it may seem that it is struggling like there's no tomorrow, but do you really believe that it's thinking "god damn that fucking human about to kill me. I don't want to lose my mother, my wife, my baby boy! Please don't do this!"?



No would argue that the nervous system of an insect is as complex as a humans. However, thats more reductionism because I am not talking about "lower organisms" like insects, but highly developed mammalian organisms who have a nervous system comparable to our own i.e. the animals that we farm. Farm animals clearly display complex emotions. It is evident that a cow has a more complex nervous system then a mosquito, and a dolphin more then a cow. You can't make a statement about an insect and apply that to mammals who are highly and 'recently' evolved. 

I think we should definitely be careful of anthropomorphising the experience of non-humans; it is an injustice to assume that all lifeforms feel like us. However, it is not anthropomorphic to look at the facts of evolved behaviours and emotional responses and understand that denying those drives leads to immense suffering. All mammals have evolved emotional needs to ensure that they survive. You can make light of the drive of an animal to bond with its mother or offspring, but that behaviour is truly pragmatic; it needs its mother to survive; and has evolved emotional systems to motivate and reinforce that instinct. If a mammal did not have a motivation to bond with its mother, it would probably not survive. But, that sort of complex motivation would mean nothing to most animals and so simpler drives emerge and that is an emotional response to one's mother and a strong emotional response in her absence. 




> What I'm saying is that animals with less complex nervous systems may behave and react similarly to us, but it doesn't automatically mean they are having the same subjective experience. That is what I mean by most of them being "machines", not much more than that. We are too, except we also developed an over-sized brain so we're worrying about shit all the time. I don't believe most animals have the cognitive abilities and memory capacity to remember and analyze their life, or think about what's happening in the present as we do. Until you've been inside a cow's head, I'm going to be skeptical of this.



To an extent, you needn't be sceptical. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that mammals can suffer, physically and emotionally. I conceded that non-humans probably have a less profound experience of suffering compared to humans, because of their lower intelligence and self-awareness. This does not mean that they do not suffer. You do not need to communicate directly with a cow to understand that the structure of its nervous system, the emotional capacities of its brain and its evolved social behaviour are suggestive of similar drives and experiential capacity as our own, and we know how deeply we can suffer through lack of socialising or being removed from our birth mother. We are certainly not that unique in our experiences; we do not have a monopoly on pain and suffering. People seem to think that humans are completely distinct in our experiences, but for the majoirty of our 200,000 year history, we have not exhibited much behaviour at all that seperates us from animals. We are not that different at all...



> "Ethics" are secondary at best, because it's all subjective as I've explained.



I don't even really beleive in the ideas of ethics and morality as eternal and objective facts. They change as society changes. So, its useful to look at what we can know objectively and that is that the nervous system and social behaviour of farm animals indicate that a factory farm environment is a difficult and highly unpleasant one. The reason these environments exist is that humans have an unreasonable desire to eat more meat than is healthy and sustainable. If we were not so hungry for meat as a 'right', we would not resort to mass production; we would nullify some of the most painful aspects of farming animals and, most importantly, we would not be totally fucking with the environment upon which all life depends.


----------



## belligerent drunk

willow11 said:


> To an extent, you needn't be sceptical. There is plenty of evidence to  support the fact that mammals can suffer, physically and emotionally. I  conceded that non-humans probably have a less profound experience of  suffering compared to humans, because of their lower intelligence and  self-awareness. This does not mean that they do not suffer. You do not  need to communicate directly with a cow to understand that the structure  of its nervous system, the emotional capacities of its brain and its  evolved social behaviour are suggestive of similar drives and  experiential capacity as our own, and we know how deeply we can suffer  through lack of socialising or being removed from our birth mother. We  are certainly not that unique in our experiences; we do not have a  monopoly on pain and suffering. People seem to think that humans are  completely distinct in our experiences, but for the majoirty of our  200,000 year history, we have not exhibited much behaviour at all that  seperates us from animals. We are not that different at all...



I'm not saying that animals can't feel pain or suffering. I know they can, and you're correct to point out that humans are not much different from other animals. The only really big difference is in our prefrontal cortices. The fact that we're so good at abstract thinking and analyzing past, preset and future gives us the ability to go beyond just responding to current stimuli, and that applies to suffering too, especially if it is persistent for a long time (e.g living a terrible life). In any case, I think the discussion has become a bit too speculative.

Your last paragraph shows very well how we're after all just regular omnivores with increased executive abilities. Our disregard for the future of our planet and its environment shows that very clearly.



> don't even really beleive in the ideas of ethics and morality as  eternal and objective facts. They change as society changes. So, its  useful to look at what we can know *objectively* and that is that the  nervous system and social behaviour of farm animals indicate that a  factory farm *environment is a difficult and highly unpleasant one.*



Objectively, that still doesn't mean anything. The environment may be as unpleasant as it could be, that still doesn't mean anything objectively. This brings me back to square one to saying that "ethics" is a human-made concept that is hard to find in nature. After all, if other carnivores had the abilities to set up such farms, that's exactly how they'd set them up. Maximum efficiency.

The reason I'm willing to argue with you here is that I believe presenting such reasons as ethics in favor of veganism is not the best way to approach the matter. They're easily debatable, and in addition to that an average person can easily dismiss them, because why would they care about the welfare of other NON-HUMAN animals that they never get to see in person? You can't argue against fact however, which is that meat-based diet is unsustainable for us. I wish more people would understand that. Because no matter how sadistic or indifferent a person can be, what evidence shows us is that it is a threat to us. Any sane animal being cares about their own welfare.


----------



## swilow

> Objectively, that still doesn't mean anything. The environment may be as unpleasant as it could be, that still doesn't mean anything objectively. This brings me back to square one to saying that "ethics" is a human-made concept that is hard to find in nature. After all, if other carnivores had the abilities to set up such farms, that's exactly how they'd set them up. Maximum efficiency.



Look, I do agree that ethics are man-made. But, as humans are part of the natural world, wouldn't our ideals also be 'natural'? Objectively, suffering does mean something. It is logical and rational to argue that any life-form would wish to avoid suffering. It seems inherent that we desire a life free of pain and suffering; it appears to be encoded genetically within most animals and manifests as a survival instinct. To me, that indicates a certain objectivity in the avoidance of suffering.

Of course, whether we care about such suffering is an entirely different matter. 

Factory farming is not efficent in the sense that it over-uses resources. It is efficent only if we are willing to sacrifice biodiversity and future food sources for a short term surplus. I think its a fiction that factory farming is neccesary to feed humanity. Its unsustainable. We do not need to eat meat everyday; that is a luxury that should never be claimed as a right or requirement. And, the fact is, that the over-consumption of meat is causing environmental degradation such that once-abundant resources are no longer abundant. That is not efficency by any means. The only thing that factory farming is efficent at doing is creating money for a small group of individuals. 



> The reason I'm willing to argue with you here is that I believe presenting such reasons as ethics in favor of veganism is not the best way to approach the matter. They're easily debatable, and in addition to that an average person can easily dismiss them, because why would they care about the welfare of other NON-HUMAN animals that they never get to see in person? You can't argue against fact however, which is that meat-based diet is unsustainable for us. I wish more people would understand that. Because no matter how sadistic or indifferent a person can be, what evidence shows us is that it is a threat to us. Any sane animal being cares about their own welfare.



That's true. The ethical reasons, which I have earlier described as 'kindergarten' reasons are not as relevant in comparison to the broader consequences of meat eating. But it forms a continuum; our desire for cheap, abundant meat creates factory farms where animals inadvertently suffer. Both reasons, the broader environmental reasons as well as the ethical/kindergarten reasons are intimately connected. If humans moved away from factory farms, we would degrade the environment much less and help reduce the suffering of the animals we owe our lives too.


----------



## snazzy_sn

go vegan.


----------



## turkalurk

All jokes aside, I do appreciate the awareness that this thread has brought to me.  I haven't yet made the leap to veganism but uave given it more serious thought than ever, and have made several attempts.  I simply have not found it within to make the necessary changes, yet.  Like I have always maintained, I do admire those that have the will power and integrity to revolutionize their entire diet to do what they feel benifits this wonderful Earth.  Except for Willow, he's just a lame phony!   (Lighten up, willow, it sure made me giggle)


----------



## swilow

^A welcome change to crying yourself to sleep I'm sure


----------



## turkalurk

^I am sure you would love to believe I don't enjoy my life and the person I am.


----------



## Nixiam

You guys suck. Its easy for me to decide. I'm on a steady diet of honeybuns and cheetos and apple juice. *sarcasm*


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> ^I am sure you would love to believe I don't enjoy my life and the person I am.



To be honest, I've not really thought about your life in great depth.


----------



## Nixiam

I think it was humorous banter, willow.


----------



## swilow

Its sure something :D


----------



## tantric

as a side note, if the whole world went vegan, would that not be extinction for our domestic livestock? personally, i think our partner species are getting a good deal. i only object to the hellish cruelty of modern factory farms. death is natural, not to be feared, but torturing an animal so you can have a cheap cheeseburger is unsupportable.


----------



## Ninae

tantric said:


> livestock? personally, i think our partner species are getting a good deal. i only object to the hellish cruelty



What planet are you on? Do you think most of our meat comes from wild game?


----------



## swilow

tantric said:


> as a side note, if the whole world went vegan, would that not be extinction for our domestic livestock? personally, i think our partner species are getting a good deal. i only object to the hellish cruelty of modern factory farms. death is natural, not to be feared, but torturing an animal so you can have a cheap cheeseburger is unsupportable.



Well, I don't think it would be 'extinction'. Surely we can reduce the numbers humanely by allowing current livestock to live out their lives whilst reducing the amount of breeding. 

You can't really say that these animals get a "good deal" when they live in "hellish" conditions. That makes no sense. I feel like you are arguing that simply existing is better than not existing- a point I discussed earlier and concluded to be ignorant. A terrible existence is worthless.

We simply do not have the resources for the current mass numbers of livestock to live comfortably. The two solutions are barabaric factory farms ('eternal Treblinka') or mass reductions in the consumption of meat. It is clear which side will win that as long as westerners continue to believe it is their right (and healthy!) to eat meat every day. It is not a right at all, it is not healthy and it is unnatural for our species. Thank fuck for India's beliefs about sacred cows and the relative paucity of meat consumption in Chinese culture. If/when these nations begin consuming meat at our levels, goodbye planet earth 

I think that meat should be made very expensive. I do not partake in meat eating, yet as an earthling, I am deeply affected by those who do. That seems unjust to me. I think meat eaters should be obligated to pay extra for their luxury and for that extra money to be put towards mitigation of the environmental destruction they are perpetrating. The current suffering of farm animals is nothing compared to what is to come to all earthly lifeforms. It angers me that I am going to have suffer so that fat people can continue eating tortured steaks 3 times a day. :D

(I have been thinking about how meat eaters could be held accountable in court of law for their infringement of my rights. Of course, human rights have a distinct cut-off around the point that involves us actually sacrificing anything of ourselves)


----------



## Nixiam

willow11 said:


> Well, I don't think it would be 'extinction'. Surely we can reduce the numbers humanely by allowing current livestock to live out their lives whilst reducing the amount of breeding.
> 
> You can't really say that these animals get a "good deal" when they live in "hellish" conditions. That makes no sense. I feel like you are arguing that simply existing is better than not existing- a point I discussed earlier and concluded to be ignorant. A terrible existence is worthless.
> 
> We simply do not have the resources for the current mass numbers of livestock to live comfortably. The two solutions are barabaric factory farms ('eternal Treblinka') or mass reductions in the consumption of meat. It is clear which side will win that as long as westerners continue to believe it is their right (and healthy!) to eat meat every day. It is not a right at all, it is not healthy and it is unnatural for our species. Thank fuck for India's beliefs about sacred cows and the relative paucity of meat consumption in Chinese culture. If/when these nations begin consuming meat at our levels, goodbye planet earth
> 
> I think that meat should be made very expensive. I do not partake in meat eating, yet as an earthling, I am deeply affected by those who do. That seems unjust to me. I think meat eaters should be obligated to pay extra for their luxury and for that extra money to be put towards mitigation of the environmental destruction they are perpetrating. The current suffering of farm animals is nothing compared to what is to come to all earthly lifeforms. It angers me that I am going to have suffer so that fat people can continue eating tortured steaks 3 times a day. :D
> 
> (I have been thinking about how meat eaters could be held accountable in court of law for their infringement of my rights. Of course, human rights have a distinct cut-off around the point that involves us actually sacrificing anything of ourselves)



When I move out of my parents house, I intend on going vegan or something. I've cut my meat intake by a ton (except for bacon). When I have bacon inside my face, nothing matters. Nothing.


----------



## Ninae

You know fried Holoumi cheese is a good substitute.


----------



## Nixiam

Nein


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:
			
		

> You know fried Holoumi cheese is a good substitute.



As an alternative to bacon? Hmm. Its not vegan though... I would have little problem consuming such animal products if I could be sure it was farmed responsibly and sustainably. We're all going to die so avoiding that isn't that important. Its the quality of life that matters for me. If I could be sure that milk products were coming from animals who were 'allowed' certain natural behaviours and relative comfort, I'd be frying haloumi right now. If I coudl be sure that my diet was not contributing to global destruction, I'd be stuffing all my orifices with bacon, especially my nose. My cousin has chickens, I occaisionally have a few of their eggs. They make a lot of them, their lives are decent; they have freedom to roost and nest, they have a social structure, they even have a pseudo-rooster. They eat bulk feed from an organic farm, so their diet isn't destructive. I don't feel any guilt if I occaionslly devour their unfertilised ovum. 



			
				Nix said:
			
		

> When I move out of my parents house, I intend on going vegan or something. I've cut my meat intake by a ton (except for bacon). When I have bacon inside my face, nothing matters. Nothing.



I felt that way about salami. I occasionally crave that fermented pig flesh. Intensely.  

I would suggest that you transition to veganism relatively slowly and listen to your body. I intially was a pesquetarian (sp? fish eater is what I'm trying to say...). I cut out fish and just ate a vegetarian diet for a few years. Miss Willow wanted to go vegan, I was really resistant, arguing against it as a form of extremism, she won. We're both vegans. It took a while before I felt good on a vegan diet. I think that men have greater desire for meat; well, I did. 

During the extreme spasticity of my drug addictions I was really too skinny with abscessed arm from injecting, and completely fucked teeth. Basically malnourished. After quitting, I had lost so much muscle mass (I used to work out regulary, was never "ripped" but had nice definition ), I had the full ribcage protrusion and Jesus-style abs, the hollow cheeks and sunken eyes. Looked like I was terminally ill and I effectively was... I felt so weak, simple movements were difficult and I was tired constantly. For a few months, I ate free-range chicken for protein and excerised a lot, got my metabolism accepting the idea that I was a human who ate food regularly and got back in relative shape. I then went back to being vegan. It takes research and thoughtfullness and, as I said, the ability to listen to ones body and respond accordingly. I feel healthier than ever; whilst I still have teeth problems (I'm a grinder) and problems with my stomach from healed ulcers, I have energy and a 'clean' inner feeling. There is some awesome vegan/vege foods around and it takes a bit of effort to find things that you like but is well worth it.

Meat is murder :D


----------



## spacejunk

Tempeh > haloumi


----------



## swilow

I urge everyone to try Linda McCartney's vegetarian sausages. I swear by them.


----------



## spacejunk

Yeah, they're not bad.
I've recently discovered cashew cheese, and therefore rediscovered pizza.
It's really similar to a soft cheese like goat's cheese.  Amazing stuff, and doesn't fuck with my stomach the way a lot of cheese or meat substitutes tend to.
I never like most of those sorts of things anyway - i don't like eating meat so i don't miss it or feel the need to compensate for it in my diet or replace it in meals...but my partner does so we eat those things sometimes.
Vegetarian sausages are kind of a different thing though - to me they often don't really resemble "meat" in the first place, and are made of random ground up bits of animal, so the veg versions are frankly an improvement - but frankly i prefer to eat as little processed food as possible, and go more for fresh vegetables, beans and such.
Nice to have "real" pizza again though. Yum!


----------



## Ninae

The best substitues for me are roasted, chopped walnuts, which you can put in anything, pasta, hot salads, nut-roast, etc (should be combined with onion). And grilled Haloumi cheese is pretty amazing in sandwiches and all kinds of things instead of meat.


----------



## adultswimbumpwatch

well theirs the fact it takes 680 gallons to make one quarter pound of meat. We have more than a billion humans starving and 40% of the worlds land is used for agruculutre. So instead of wasting land and water to feed the cows. Why dont we feed humans instead and stop growing so much grain for livestock. Methane from these animals is at least 4 times more damaging to the athmoshere than co2 plus theirs more methane that co2 rn. All the animal poo has destroyed coasts and oceans. God please only eat plants its the most ethical fucking thing to do


----------



## dopemaster

As far as my experiences with it those are below.  Human beings are omnivores so they require a diverse diet to be healthy according to most scientific common knowledge.  I personally do not worry to much about the ethics of all of that other than when it comes to dairy.  Milk just makes me sick to my stomach for a myriad of reasons.

I did try out being a vegetarian.  I felt rather weak, so I decided is was not gonna work out.  That was at a rather young age when I was around family who where vegetarian or vegan.

I had a friend who was vegetarian in high school and she suffered from anemia and when that happened she ate chicken.

I avoid fast food for health and ethical reasons.

I suppose I do enjoy eating a great deal of fruits and vegtables and have no problem eating vegetarian food as healthy food tastes just fine to me.  I guess it comes down to the most primal urge to eat meat and I eat whatever I crave and it is not always meat.  I try to keep my diet balanced and diverse.  

It comes down to the fact that I can't change the world, at least not through this type of thing.  Hopefully my art will one day be worth something to other people.  I do feel like free speech is always censored and art is not.  So that being said I want to use what skills I have when I can to do something meaningful.


----------



## WhatWorks33

I switched to vegetarian about 3 months ago when I finally found the path I wanted to take to my spirituality. It's no set religion but one of my favorite spiritual guides talks about how if you must eat meat... you want to choose meats that are the farthest from human beings on the evolutionary time line because as animals evolved so did their memories and experiences and every memory and emotion is stored in every new cell created with each offspring for generations.... I am currently lacto-veg but  going to go back ovo-lacto-veg soon enough since eggs aren't fertilized and I can get them local cruelty free. 

Plus vegetarian home cooked meals are way cheaper and just as tasty haha.


----------



## dopemaster

I'd like to add I really like soy milk.  Milk just disgusts me for a myriad of reasons.


----------



## spacejunk

Tried almond milk?  I love that stuff.


----------



## WhatWorks33

I can see why. I'd go almond or coconut instead of soy though.  I already get so much soy in tofu and miso which I use in a lot of my cooking. Can maybe milk a cat instead.


----------



## spacejunk

Veg food is amazing.  I havent eaten meat for 17+ years and love eating vegetarian (and mostly vegan).
Healthy, tasty, more eco-friendly.  It's a personal thing; i don't care what people eat - but for me being vego is awesome.


----------



## Xorkoth

WhatWorks33 said:


> I switched to vegetarian about 3 months ago when I finally found the path I wanted to take to my spirituality. It's no set religion but one of my favorite spiritual guides talks about how if you must eat meat... you want to choose meats that are the farthest from human beings on the evolutionary time line because as animals evolved so did their memories and experiences and every memory and emotion is stored in every new cell created with each offspring for generations.... I am currently lacto-veg but  going to go back ovo-lacto-veg soon enough since eggs aren't fertilized and I can get them local cruelty free.



Not sure if I buy the theory, but I want to buy it, I'm open to it being real.  But it could explain why I feel better eating fish than mammals.

I'm hopefully going on a fishing trip with my friend soon for a bunch of mountain trout... we'll catch the limit and freeze all but the ones we cook that night.   I'd love to have a freezer full of great local trout, I'd eat fish a lot more often if it wasn't way more expensive.


----------



## Jabberwocky

I sometimes miss the convenience of eating meat, but I rarely miss the meat itself. Not on a mission to change people, but for people who don't want to give up meat but want to make positive lifestyle changes, it's useful to consider the environmental impact of the meat you consume.  

"According to a study published last year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the production of red meat generates, on average, four times more greenhouse-gas emissions than an equivalent amount of chicken or fish, and turns out more carbon-dioxide equivalent than any other food group. Red meat is so resource-intensive, in fact, that if we all cut our consumption of it by one-quarter, the reduction in greenhouse gases would be the same as shifting to a 100 percent locally sourced diet. "(Study: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f )

So simply eliminating or reducing red meat consumption could have a huge impact on a global scale. Not to mention it's more healthy, cheaper and arguably more humane ( I'd kill a chicken over a cow any day). Interestingly, I learned recently that with chickens it is possible to hypnotize them before slaughter. A hypnotized chicken is claimed to be unaware that it is dying or dead. of course that's debatable, but I suspect there's truth to it. Not making this up, apparently Al Gore was a big proponent of this practice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism


----------



## swilow

^Would a non-hypnotised chicken know it was dead though? 

The greenhouse gas argument is the most compelling argument for meat-eaters IMO. We've just experienced the hottest year on record, just experienced the hottest month. Carbon dioxide release was higher in 2014 than any other year on record. We really need to be doing something about this and now. Reducing red meat consumption and thus production would be a start. I doubt many people will change willingly though. 



			
				Xorkoth said:
			
		

> I'm hopefully going on a fishing trip with my friend soon for a bunch of mountain trout... we'll catch the limit and freeze all but the ones we cook that night.  I'd love to have a freezer full of great local trout, I'd eat fish a lot more often if it wasn't way more expensive.



Whilst on the subject of hypnotising animals, why not try some trout tickling while you are at it? :D


----------



## Jabberwocky

> ^Would a non-hypnotised chicken know it was dead though?



Lol, that was a mistake, replace that with "being killed." This is the P&S though so we can't take anything off the table, but we'll save the "does a dead chicken know it's dead" question for another day


----------



## dopemaster

spacejunk said:


> Tried almond milk?  I love that stuff.



It was a bit rich.  Might make a good white russian though.  

I want to try coconut milk though.  I love some coconut.

Greek yogurt is good.  I like processed dairy like yogurt and some cheese, but not american cheese as that is kinda gross imho.


----------



## tantric

willow11 said:


> Well, I don't think it would be 'extinction'. Surely we can reduce the numbers humanely by allowing current livestock to live out their lives whilst reducing the amount of breeding.
> 
> You can't really say that these animals get a "good deal" when they live in "hellish" conditions. That makes no sense. I feel like you are arguing that simply existing is better than not existing- a point I discussed earlier and concluded to be ignorant. A terrible existence is worthless.
> 
> We simply do not have the resources for the current mass numbers of livestock to live comfortably. The two solutions are barabaric factory farms ('eternal Treblinka') or mass reductions in the consumption of meat. It is clear which side will win that as long as westerners continue to believe it is their right (and healthy!) to eat meat every day. It is not a right at all, it is not healthy and it is unnatural for our species. Thank fuck for India's beliefs about sacred cows and the relative paucity of meat consumption in Chinese culture. *If/when these nations begin consuming meat at our levels, goodbye planet earth
> *
> I think that meat should be made very expensive. I do not partake in meat eating, yet as an earthling, I am deeply affected by those who do. That seems unjust to me. I think meat eaters should be obligated to pay extra for their luxury and for that extra money to be put towards mitigation of the environmental destruction they are perpetrating. The current suffering of farm animals is nothing compared to what is to come to all earthly lifeforms. It angers me that I am going to have suffer so that fat people can continue eating tortured steaks 3 times a day. :D
> 
> (I have been thinking about how meat eaters could be held accountable in court of law for their infringement of my rights. Of course, human rights have a distinct cut-off around the point that involves us actually sacrificing anything of ourselves)



the good deal if for their species. notice that for several domesticated animals, the wild version is extinct. on the whole, i heartedly agree with you. especially the part i bolded, but that applied to energy consumption in general, too. the only way to feed all the people on earth and maintain some environmental standard with with a vegetarian diet. if we could rationally and cooperatively manage the oceans, they would provide a huge sustainable source of protein. i consider factory farms to be an abomination. people who would never hurt a kitten think nothing of their cheeseburgers - hating hypocrisy is one thing god and i agree on.

look, consider this:



> you need the handle of a shovel or like and a backyard where there are carpenter bees, what my people call bumblebees, where the females make bore nests in wood and the males hover and guard it. the females have black spots on their head and don’t hover, males have yellow spots, hover and *cannot* sting. we used to catch them and let them buzz and pretend it was a radio. so, in this species, males are kinda expendable. if you use a switch, like a stalk from dogfennel, whacking them doesn’t hurt them, they’re back in a minute (i did catch and release experiments as a kid). you know what to do – stalk the hovering globe and whack it with a stick, like the jedi mf you are. it’s NOT easy. if you can’t, get a tennis racket for training wheels. never hit the same bee twice in a day, tomorrow it’s probably another one anyway. after you smack the bastard, bow and thank him for the match. once you can do this, you can take any stick and fuck a mf up with a quickness. no joke, cause you’re quick. tip, distract the bee with your off foot, and they move in predictable ways…and so do bald apes.



right, that's horrible? smacking bees around for sport?



> there is a deep meaning to bumblebee baseball. yes, i’m going to go on about the bees again. carpenter bees will literally eat your wooden building down around you – there’s sawdust falling like snow in my shed. they’re worse than termites, and that means that the human race is going to wage war against the species. bumblebee baseball is an alternative: domestication. so long as people enjoy the activity, they have a reason to keep the bees around. my father tried to poison them, and it had no effect at all – i saw no dead bees, but after an hour of exercise, the ground is littered with them. if you actually want to control the numbers, you have to hit the females, but you must leave some. these insects would not have these nests and exist in such numbers if it weren’t for humans, so we make a bargain with them. some of you can use our wood, and prosper, and we get to swat the excess. i believe in ahimsa, non-harming, to my core, but i’m also an ecologist, and this is managing the garden.
> 
> evolution isn’t as most people see it, red in tooth and claw. there are layers upon layers of mutualism that make that tiger possible. the chloroplasts in plants and the mitochondria in our cells are mutualistic symbionts. flowering plants and their pollinators dominate the land along with forests and their mycorhizzae, and corals and their symbiotic algaes take a bit part of the oceans. the last major group of symbionts is us: humans and our partner plants and animals. evolutionary biology recognizes another form of evolution outside of genetics, cultural evolution, part of dual inheritance theory. the neolithic age and the green revolution are about this technology. we are now going through a new phase of domestication, with such as the dozens of tropical fish species and hundreds of exotic house plants. there are also peridomesticates, like songbirds that raise an extra brood each year in urban areas, from feeders and urban heat runoff as new species take their part in our collective.
> 
> biotechnology is the feedback cycle between information, industrial and agricultural revolutions. cultural evolution and genetic evolution are linked. now, i’m not saying that this is going to go well for our current civilization, but it does herald a new phase of our evolution. thus teilhard de chardin, the jesuit palaeontologist with his ideas of evolution towards godhead. i’ve read that some of his ideas have been tested and shown to be false, but the tests where not all they could be, and in any case, it’s the kind of thing we make true. we could domesticate every species (left) on the planet, make the world our garden. now, among ecologist, this is a touchy idea – many people want large areas of wilderness left alone, which i fully support, but the truth is that those ecosystem are already structured by human impacts and to be complete hands off is irresponsible.
> 
> this is the nutty part – if, somehow, we manage to manage our world, then it becomes (and i hate this word) our destiny to spread life to the dead worlds. by then, humanity *is* life on earth and we have the means to take that life elsewhere. we will grow cacti and lichens on mars, plankton in the seas of europa, who knows? living Zeppelins in the atmosphere of jupiter, all of which are children of earth. so, the man on mars thing – no. that’s a publicity stunt and useless. send a dozen robots for half the cost, learn automation and robotics. we lack the technology to build stable closed ecosystems – we can’t even do it here, in the desert. we need a self-sufficient science colony here on earth, in oh, say, Antarctica, somewhere with geothermal heat and ore. we build the best station the world can build, geared toward self-sufficiency. send 500 highly trained people and thereafter they get one shipment of stuff a year, within limits and otherwise have only information contact.the colony is not allowed to hunt, fish or otherwise interact with the local ecosystem. hell, pay for it with reality television, people would be fascinated. that’s the technology we need, and it would probably cost less than the man on mars nonsense.



it's the cruelty i have a problem with, not eating meat. but it should be a luxury item, not daily and it should come from people who know and love the animals.


----------



## WhatWorks33

I don't know if I buy it 100% either but I know we're definitely not doing it right in the western world so I've started taking what the ancients in the east passed down for millenia to heart.  Gotta get back to our roots as mankind or we're gonna be gone sooner rather than later.  I think this realization is what is going to cause the next 2 chromosome leap in evolution with our offspring that tool talks about in 46 and 2.


----------



## tantric

WhatWorks33 said:


> I don't know if I buy it 100% either but I know we're definitely not doing it right in the western world so I've started taking what the ancients in the east passed down for millenia to heart.  Gotta get back to our roots as mankind or we're gonna be gone sooner rather than later.  I think this realization is what is going to cause the next 2 chromosome leap in evolution with our offspring that tool talks about in 46 and 2.



dude, your ancestors would have considered roadkill a gift from heaven. primitivism is useless. 'the east'? not, mind you, that i don't wear the red, gold and green of mother africa, but still. the next leap in evolution is transhumanism, likely involving genetic engineering.


----------



## WhatWorks33

I'm referencing mostly india when talking about elder civilizations.  There's something about being content with age old traditions. There's wisdom beyond anything the young USA can muster. But that's honestly just my personal thoughts. I could never grasp western theology. I'm a bit of a woo woo I guess.


----------



## tantric

WhatWorks33 said:


> I'm referencing mostly india when talking about elder civilizations.  There's something about being content with age old traditions. There's wisdom beyond anything the young USA can muster. But that's honestly just my personal thoughts. I could never grasp western theology. I'm a bit of a woo woo I guess.



sorry if i was harsh. i am a buddhist, btw. i agree that there is a science of the mind the doesn't require material technology and was mastered long ago. but i'm also a scientist - it's really not woo. buddhist nondualism is actually the proper way of viewing reality, according to modern physics, for example.


----------



## belligerent drunk

WhatWorks33 said:


> Gotta get back to our roots as mankind or we're gonna be gone sooner rather than later.



I disagree. Adopting an ideology just because it's old, as a sort of tradition, is misguided in my opinion. People who came up with most of those traditions did not have the knowledge about the world that we do. So we should not revert to ancient... myths. I believe we should base our ideology and policy on evidence. Evidence-based policy is the only rational option in my opinion. And evidence suggests that a meat-based diet is unsustainable for humankind of this size. That is what matters. Whether our children or grandchildren will have an Earth to live on or not, or have to clean up the mess we left them with.


----------



## tantric

okay, postmodernism - every idea you encounter is new to you. the age of the idea is irrelevant - but we look at them for their value, now. and use them, now. i was talking about buddhism, which was very rational in the beginning.


----------



## swilow

The only ideas that are valuable are good ideas, regardless of age.


----------



## belligerent drunk

tantric said:


> okay, postmodernism - every idea you encounter is new to you. the age of the idea is irrelevant - but we look at them for their value, now. and use them, now. i was talking about buddhism, which was very rational in the beginning.



I don't see why you should take on the whole package (a la be religious, for example buddhist) just because there's an odd good idea somewhere within the religion. Deciding on each question/problem on a case by case basis, using evidence and rational thinking, is better in my opinion.


----------



## tantric

group identity is powerful, for one. and there's just a matter of trust - most of the things i've learned under buddhism are palatable to me, so i'll give it some credit. besides, i like having optional woo. when my niece got diagnosed with brain cancer, i consulted the literature and found the medicine buddha and his sutra. also, i believe in the bodhisattvas, transcendent beings who forgo nirvana until all suffering in this universe is extinguished. i took the vow - 'so long as suffering exists, i, too, shall remain' (actually a lot more involved). micheal coreless, author of 'vision of buddhism' said 'after years of intellectual study, the buddhas became real to me'.


----------



## ScaredofMyself

I liked the vegan kids in high school. They'd sit with me even though I was eating cheeseburgers and chicken nuggets. They wouldn't even say anything. 

And they didn't act high and mighty.


----------



## spacejunk

Most vegans don't.
I don't know where the stereotypes about vegans being preachy food nazis comes from.
Probably the meat industry's promotions department 
But seriously, outside of over-zealous people in brief* militant-vegan phases, i've never known vegans to be the type of people to lecture or judge.
I'm sure they exist, but for my vegan friends it is just a personal commitment to live in a way that is true to their ethical beliefs.



* IME the overly extreme vegan types are often the ones back eating steak in a year or two


----------



## belligerent drunk

spacejunk said:


> Most vegans don't.
> I don't know where the stereotypes about vegans being preachy food nazis comes from.
> Probably the meat industry's promotions department
> But seriously, outside of over-zealous people in brief* militant-vegan phases, i've never known vegans to be the type of people to lecture or judge.
> I'm sure they exist, but for my vegan friends it is just a personal commitment to live in a way that is true to their ethical beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> * IME the overly extreme vegan types are often the ones back eating steak in a year or two



I don't know many vegans in real life, but the one I do know, my ex, was really the stereotypical one. We had many arguments on this subject, even though I'm in favor of veganism. The problem was that I couldn't stand the pseudoscientific and emotionally-driven arguments she presented.


----------



## ScaredofMyself

spacejunk said:


> Most vegans don't.
> I don't know where the stereotypes about vegans being preachy food nazis comes from.
> Probably the meat industry's promotions department
> But seriously, outside of over-zealous people in brief* militant-vegan phases, i've never known vegans to be the type of people to lecture or judge.
> I'm sure they exist, but for my vegan friends it is just a personal commitment to live in a way that is true to their ethical beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> * IME the overly extreme vegan types are often the ones back eating steak in a year or two



You should see my Facebook. It's full of people who think they're just the bees knees.


----------



## spacejunk

Eh?


----------



## swilow

Facebook is filled with people who think they are something that they are not...


----------

