Willy Wonka and the Vampire Castle
Edited by Noosphere ()
Noosphere posted:Squalid posted:marimite posted:roseweird posted:marimite posted:if meat helps you exhaust your possibilities as a human being towards giving birth to the overman then go ahead.
would this argument hold for human flesh too, then? how could eating meat possibly help you exhaust those possibilities, except in cases of starvation (in which case i agree, if eating meat is the only thing between you and death you should do it)? i mean i guess i agree with your overall ethics here on some level, in that i am willing to engage in animal research for the purpose of improving the human future, but consuming flesh seems very different. there are no benefits other than nutrition, and that nutrition can be gained in other ways.
Well, eating people doesn't seem very healthy to me. I know very little about nutrition, but I know the meat of animals, on the other hand, is an easy way to make people strong that's difficult to replace. So I guess for me it's less a question of whether eating meat is permissible but rather who should eat meat. Which of course probably isn't most people.
It's not difficult to replace. Maybe if you're doing some serious strength training but even then it's possible to get all your protein from plant sources, without resorting to supplements.
Animals are necessary for the production of vegetables and an uncountable number are killed in all forms of agriculture. To feed people it is necessary to subvert and shape natural nutrient flows. how can it be moral to clear the granary of mice but immoral to eat one? What is it to shoot a deer, clear it's forest for grain, or place it an a park?
you should eat the mice.
Noosphere posted:how can it be moral to clear the granary of mice but immoral to eat one? What is it to shoot a deer, clear it's forest for grain, or place it an a park?
you're right. how can it be moral to do one thing, but immoral to do a completely different thing?
swampman posted:"You know, if this cow hadnt been domesticated and, after thousands of years of selective breeding, born into a life of inconceivable torture and boredom within the packing industry of modern day capitalism, on the front lines of antibiotic resistant disease and growth hormones, to satisfy the pretentious, flesh-oriented diets of humanity's oppressor classes, it would probably have been eaten by a crocodile in a swamp years ago. Nature is like that."
itd probably just have gone extinct like lots of other eurasian megafauna tbh
born into a life of inconceivable torture and boredom
much like my posting career
jools posted:swampman posted:"You know, if this cow hadnt been domesticated and, after thousands of years of selective breeding, born into a life of inconceivable torture and boredom within the packing industry of modern day capitalism, on the front lines of antibiotic resistant disease and growth hormones, to satisfy the pretentious, flesh-oriented diets of humanity's oppressor classes, it would probably have been eaten by a crocodile in a swamp years ago. Nature is like that."
itd probably just have gone extinct like lots of other eurasian megafauna tbh
Cool fact aurochs survived until the 16th century. I heard one time domestic cattle bred them out of existence but wikipedia says the genetic evidence suggests that didn't happen. So we just kilt them all.
hwilpe posted:Noosphere posted:how can it be moral to clear the granary of mice but immoral to eat one? What is it to shoot a deer, clear it's forest for grain, or place it an a park?
you're right. how can it be moral to do one thing, but immoral to do a completely different thing?
Animals don't have agency? All we are doing is dressing them up and putting them in pleasing poses. It upsets some people when you make them fight or tear them apart, but it's people who you are upsetting, not the animals. animals are puppets.
Noosphere posted:Animals don't have agency?
Oh yeah? Who does have agency, you? Your behavior is completely determined by forces larger than yourself as well. How does the theory that animals can't make choices justify your part in this daily holocaust?
swampman posted:Noosphere posted:Animals don't have agency?
Oh yeah? Who does have agency, you? Your behavior is completely determined by forces larger than yourself as well. How does the theory that animals can't make choices justify your part in this daily holocaust?
if people don't have agency then there is no such thing as morality?
The only difference between burying 10000 pigs alive and growing soybeans is that its harder for people to project themselves onto plants. we think "what would it be like to be a pig" and recoil in horror, but there is no being a pig.
Edited by Noosphere ()
not eligible for pizza-idf
Noosphere posted:if people don't have agency then there is no such thing as morality?
The only difference between burying 10000 pigs alive and growing soybeans is that its harder for people to project themselves onto plants. we think "what would it be like to be a pig" and recoil in horror, but there is no being a pig.
ninja awoke one morning from ninja dreams to find himself transformed into an enormous pig
Noosphere posted:swampman posted:Noosphere posted:Animals don't have agency?
Oh yeah? Who does have agency, you? Your behavior is completely determined by forces larger than yourself as well. How does the theory that animals can't make choices justify your part in this daily holocaust?
if people don't have agency then there is no such thing as morality?
The only difference between burying 10000 pigs alive and growing soybeans is that its harder for people to project themselves onto plants. we think "what would it be like to be a pig" and recoil in horror, but there is no being a pig.
Ok first off I hate the word "agency." Second, I don't believe people don't have "agency." I am telling you, I think the presence/absence of free will in a person or creature, should not be what determines whether it's okay to hurt and kill them. The two qualities have no natural relationship, that is just some more sort of archaic shit about human-ness as a basis for special privilege, you utter goof.
swampman posted:Noosphere posted:swampman posted:Noosphere posted:Animals don't have agency?
Oh yeah? Who does have agency, you? Your behavior is completely determined by forces larger than yourself as well. How does the theory that animals can't make choices justify your part in this daily holocaust?
if people don't have agency then there is no such thing as morality?
The only difference between burying 10000 pigs alive and growing soybeans is that its harder for people to project themselves onto plants. we think "what would it be like to be a pig" and recoil in horror, but there is no being a pig.
Ok first off I hate the word "agency." Second, I don't believe people don't have "agency." I am telling you, I think the presence/absence of free will in a person or creature, should not be what determines whether it's okay to hurt and kill them. The two qualities have no natural relationship, that is just some more sort of archaic shit about human-ness as a basis for special privilege, you utter goof.
But this entire discussion only exists because we have a soul. the existence of animals is arbitrary, where one animal ends and another begins is arbitrary. animals don't exist.
obviously we will continue to shape energy flows in a way that is pleasing to us. it is moral to shape them in a way that is beneficial to everyone.
roseweird posted:Noosphere posted:But this entire discussion only exists because we have a soul. the existence of animals is arbitrary, where one animal ends and another begins is arbitrary. animals don't exist.
wow you will say absolutely anything to justify the consumption of flesh
Growing crops doesn't not kill animals.
Consuming flesh is holy
they may not have a nervous system, but their complex use of hormones through signal transduction (like us, but no glands) acts for the most part like a rudimentary nervous system. their hormones range from something as simple as ethylene (the simplest alkene structure) to god damn protein hormones (or at least small peptide molecules(small meaning it would take you 30 minutes to draw it's structure)).
they can even respond to stimuli, and no, not just light but also force and touch through something called thigmotropism. they respond to predation through the regulation of crazy compounds that include THC and nicotine, yet they are able to adapt their growth to allow rhizzobial nitrogen fixing bacteria inside their roots. all these things i've mentioned are found in my damn general biology textbook, a botanist could write you ten textbooks worth of plant "sentience" bullshit (my bio 1 professor was a botanist and also insane and racist).
animals are the most relatable form of life and we can certainly say they have "awareness" because it's simply logical since they are just like us. but, who's to say that plants aren't "aware?" through what we know of their physiology they most likely are, however in a way we dont and probably will never understand.
Edited by gwap ()
Joe_the_Plumber posted:The concept of a soul is ridiculous, TIA
you are ridiculous, joe the plumber
gwap posted:but for real, i can't see how someone who doesn't eat meat can justify eating plants.
very true, but so long as the food production doesn't eliminate the life then I don't see the problem. So eggs, milk, fruits and some veggies, nuts, beans, etc. are, if one is concerned with sustaining herself without eliminating life, prob the best choices.
i just don't get the vegan "don't eat eggs/drink milk" thing. if one conceptualizes of an ethical diet as a diet that avoids the loss of life, then eggs are awesome. they aren't gonna do anything but rot on the ground. free-roaming, egg dropping chickens, that's where its at.
