lordoflight wrote:all hail the animal rights
do you know that humanity has genocided 60% of the animals on this planet since 1970...the human race is the most evil thing in existence...
human race are evil hypocrit savages who are unworthy, my hate is boundless and knows know bounds
most humans are subhuman savages who do not deserve oxygen
for standing up for animals you will be hated and alone...subhumans eat mcdonalds 24/7 and give no love
basically censored it again, im afraid of batshit insane sjws who will acuse me of things merely for even saying the word hitler...
ok ill say it again, i am not a nazi but all i am saying is hitler did animal rights, so if you don't do animal rights you are litterally worse than hitler.
Actually they are finding all sorts of reactions, choices, intentions in plants that parallel those life forms with nervous systems exhibit. Googling plant intelligence, plant nervous systems, plant communication, plant choices will find all sorts of mainstream science showing that our prejudices against what is seemingly less like us has been separating out flora and fauna on poor grounds.KAICHEN1988 wrote:We do not advocate "protecting plants".
Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.
Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.
Actually they are finding all sorts of reactions, choices, intentions in plants that parallel those life forms with nervous systems exhibit. Googling plant intelligence, plant nervous systems, plant communication, plant choices will find all sorts of mainstream science showing that our prejudices against what is seemingly less like us has been separating out flora and fauna on poor grounds.
Mr Reasonable wrote:I forgot we had a stuffed quail as well.
Mr Reasonable wrote:The other day a friend of mine and myself decided to go out and hit a handful of restaurants since she was in from out of town, so we hopped from one to another just eating and having a good ol time. Over the course of the night, we had venison, beef, pork, snails, duck, salmon, lamb, some foie gras, and at least one cocktail with an egg white in it which pretty much counts as a chicken. So that ended up being the joke of the night. How at least 9 animals had to die for us to eat all that food.
Here we have Iamb's repeat of the position on objective goods.iambiguous wrote:And, you know me, I can only acknowledge this as a particular existential contraption that he picked up over the course of living his life. It's all embedded in the complex intertwining of variables that are applicable to him no less than the variables that became intertwined in the mentality of a PETA member. Neither frame of mind is necessarily either good or bad.
And here Iamb interacting with others in moral judgment. It's understandible because we can't know objective goods that his life led him to his stance on eating meat, and one can't logically judge that...But what drives some folks to this sort of flagrant arrogance?
Mr Reasonable wrote:The other day a friend of mine and myself decided to go out and hit a handful of restaurants since she was in from out of town, so we hopped from one to another just eating and having a good ol time. Over the course of the night, we had venison, beef, pork, snails, duck, salmon, lamb, some foie gras, and at least one cocktail with an egg white in it which pretty much counts as a chicken. So that ended up being the joke of the night. How at least 9 animals had to die for us to eat all that food.
Mr Reasonable wrote: Because it feels good.
Mr Reasonable wrote: Thanks for calling me arrogant and reiterating your mental illness.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Here we have Iamb's repeat of the position on objective goods.iambiguous wrote:And, you know me, I can only acknowledge this as a particular existential contraption that he picked up over the course of living his life. It's all embedded in the complex intertwining of variables that are applicable to him no less than the variables that became intertwined in the mentality of a PETA member. Neither frame of mind is necessarily either good or bad.
But what drives some folks to this sort of flagrant arrogance?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: And here Iamb interacting with others in moral judgment. It's understandible because we can't know objective goods that his life led him to his stance on eating meat, and one can't logically judge that...
Karpel Tunnel wrote: When other people judge someone morally, they are objective moralists and this means they are bad. When Iambigious judges other people morally, it is not bad because he makes disclaimers that maybe he is wrong, sometimes. He knows, through science presumably, that judging others morally while somewhere along the way making disclaimers, eliminates the bad (irony) effects of moral judgments.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: At least we have found one of his commandments: Thou Shalt Not Be Flagrently Arrogant. Be humble and implicitly superior. Passive aggressive and smug. This causes no harm, whatever that would be, since we cannot determine it.
Serendipper wrote:Mr Reasonable wrote:The other day a friend of mine and myself decided to go out and hit a handful of restaurants since she was in from out of town, so we hopped from one to another just eating and having a good ol time. Over the course of the night, we had venison, beef, pork, snails, duck, salmon, lamb, some foie gras, and at least one cocktail with an egg white in it which pretty much counts as a chicken. So that ended up being the joke of the night. How at least 9 animals had to die for us to eat all that food.
Oink!![]()
No wonder hillbillies are fat lol
Half of that I wouldn't eat at gunpoint. Lamb smells like ass, duck and deer are too lean, and snails??? If I were going to knock off 9 animals, I'd do it at Red Lobster.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Imabiguous, you're mistaken about a critical point here. The most relevant one of all really. I don't want to have a conversation with you. I don't have the patience to break down so simply what's wrong with you the way the above poster just did, especially since when it's shown to you in clear terms you just keep doing it and pleading ignorance.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Serendipper wrote:Mr Reasonable wrote:The other day a friend of mine and myself decided to go out and hit a handful of restaurants since she was in from out of town, so we hopped from one to another just eating and having a good ol time. Over the course of the night, we had venison, beef, pork, snails, duck, salmon, lamb, some foie gras, and at least one cocktail with an egg white in it which pretty much counts as a chicken. So that ended up being the joke of the night. How at least 9 animals had to die for us to eat all that food.
Oink!![]()
No wonder hillbillies are fat lol
Half of that I wouldn't eat at gunpoint. Lamb smells like ass, duck and deer are too lean, and snails??? If I were going to knock off 9 animals, I'd do it at Red Lobster.
Most of those plates are really small, and we shared them all so it wasn't actually a ton of food. Lamb that smells like ass should be thrown out. It's not easy to cook it so that it's as amazing as it's potential allows, but there are a handful of places that can do it. The duck was actually a duck confit, so it was kind of fried in its own fat which made it pretty delicious and not too dry. The snails I just ate because I had been drinking and said why not. Red Lobster sucks. Besides all that, I'll be glad to take those duck eggs off your hands if you're in the area.
iambiguous wrote:Mr Reasonable wrote:Imabiguous, you're mistaken about a critical point here. The most relevant one of all really. I don't want to have a conversation with you. I don't have the patience to break down so simply what's wrong with you the way the above poster just did, especially since when it's shown to you in clear terms you just keep doing it and pleading ignorance.
Note to others...
Please pursue this with Mr. Reasonable. Perhaps he will reveal to you what crucial point I am mistaken about. It seems to be related to the argument raised by KT above.
On the other hand, right from the start, I acknowledge that, in regard to issues like animal rights, there may well be no way in which to determine objectively, essentially, rationally, logically, epistemologically, ontologically, teleologically etc., who either is or is not mistaken about any number of things.
Or whether Mr. Reasonable's post above is or is not In fact an example of a "flagrantly arrogant" outburst.
That is, in a No God world.
But even this can be no more than an assumption on my part. A presumption embedded in "I" embedded in dasein.
Serendipper wrote:Mr R is right you know. You even warned me about how frustrating you can be in the other thread, remember? Perhaps be more conciliatory and maybe he'll play along.
Serendipper wrote:I think his post was flagrantly arrogant and I don't see why a god is necessary to think that, but I think that's how he intended it as a provocateur. I'm also not sure there is a way to challenge him without being just as arrogant.
Serendipper wrote:The fact remains that we need meat to be healthy. Some vegans can manage with the aid of vitamins and lots of extra time and expense in, for instance, making cheese from cashews, but humans lost the ability to synthesize certain vitamins specifically because we evolved on a diet of meat, which freed time to pursue language, arts, and science instead of eating leaves all day.
Serendipper wrote:It's an unfortunate state of affairs in my opinion because I hate that animals suffer and someone being flagrantly arrogant about a callous disregard for their suffering is a travesty about which I know not what to do. Meat should be consumed with reverence and respect for the animal that gave its life, but if someone doesn't think that way, then I don't know what becomes of them or if it matters. Is empathy a weakness or a strength?
Serendipper wrote:We've been watching a buck with a broken leg on the trail cams for a couple months and my friend finally shot it the other day, but we were all sad about it because there was a part of us that wanted it to make it, but we knew it couldn't run from coyotes in that condition and we consoled ourselves that it was a mercy killing. On the other hand, we're pretty callous about coyotes and shoot them just to be rid of them. I've read some guys shoot them in the leg in order to prolong their suffering and it doesn't bother me because how coyotes are, but none of us operate in that manner. We like flattering ourselves for having an element of integrity and I think that is conducive for building relationships between people.... if you treat animals a certain way, then I conclude ___________ about you. Maybe that's the extent of it. But I have extra respect for someone who is judicious in his hunting and shows reverence for the kill.
iambiguous wrote:Serendipper wrote:Mr R is right you know. You even warned me about how frustrating you can be in the other thread, remember? Perhaps be more conciliatory and maybe he'll play along.
Sure, he might be. But I suspect that what he thinks he is right about can never really be pinned down as either right or wrong.
It's more an exchange of value judgments rooted in "I" rooted in an existential aggregation of subjective fabrications rooted in the life that he has lived. Beyond the reach of "serious philosophy".
Still, I am more than willing to be conciliatory if he is willing to intertwine the mistake he claims that I am making in an actual context involving human interactions that come into conflict.
That's basically my interest in philosophy: How ought one to live? After all, perhaps the answer can be pinned down philosophically.
Serendipper wrote:I think his post was flagrantly arrogant and I don't see why a god is necessary to think that, but I think that's how he intended it as a provocateur. I'm also not sure there is a way to challenge him without being just as arrogant.
This is purely a subjective fabrication on my part but his being the "resident contrarian" here has always struck me as revolving by and large around others seeing him as this "bad motherfucker". The guy all the women want, and all the men want to be.
Serendipper wrote:The fact remains that we need meat to be healthy. Some vegans can manage with the aid of vitamins and lots of extra time and expense in, for instance, making cheese from cashews, but humans lost the ability to synthesize certain vitamins specifically because we evolved on a diet of meat, which freed time to pursue language, arts, and science instead of eating leaves all day.
I suspect however that any number of vegetarians will beg to differ. And then the part where genes and memes become hopelessly entangled in the debates. Both sides have reasonable arguments to make. So, in my view, using the tools of philosophy here will only take you so far. The rest is the existential contraption rooted in dasein and in whatever "leap" you take to one or another moral and political narrative. Or to one or another health narrative.
Serendipper wrote:It's an unfortunate state of affairs in my opinion because I hate that animals suffer and someone being flagrantly arrogant about a callous disregard for their suffering is a travesty about which I know not what to do. Meat should be consumed with reverence and respect for the animal that gave its life, but if someone doesn't think that way, then I don't know what becomes of them or if it matters. Is empathy a weakness or a strength?
I more or less share this frame of mind but I recognize it as just that --- a particular frame of mind that I came to embody existentially given an aggregation of particular experiences.
There just does not appear to be a way [to me] to go beyond that and propose an argument deemed either to be the most rational or the only rational perspective that all reasonable/virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.
Unlike, say, this point of view:Serendipper wrote:We've been watching a buck with a broken leg on the trail cams for a couple months and my friend finally shot it the other day, but we were all sad about it because there was a part of us that wanted it to make it, but we knew it couldn't run from coyotes in that condition and we consoled ourselves that it was a mercy killing. On the other hand, we're pretty callous about coyotes and shoot them just to be rid of them. I've read some guys shoot them in the leg in order to prolong their suffering and it doesn't bother me because how coyotes are, but none of us operate in that manner. We like flattering ourselves for having an element of integrity and I think that is conducive for building relationships between people.... if you treat animals a certain way, then I conclude ___________ about you. Maybe that's the extent of it. But I have extra respect for someone who is judicious in his hunting and shows reverence for the kill.
The bottom line is that different people will react differently to this story. And this tends to revolve around historical and cultural contexts. And around more specific interpersonal interactions.
But: Is there in turn a bottom line that philosophers are able to encompass as the most reasonable manner in which to think about it?
I love the irony. In fact there is a lot of irony in your post here Serendipper. And that is a compliment. You're a gentler man than I am.Serendipper wrote:Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I love the irony. In fact there is a lot of irony in your post here Serendipper. And that is a compliment. You're a gentler man than I am.Serendipper wrote:Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.
MagsJ wrote:Cashew cheese, huh..I might just have to give making some a go.. if it's good, it'll be a real game-changer for me/my dull diet.
Well.. vegans rapidly become malnourished, so what is that telling us?
Users browsing this forum: Aegean, Fixed Cross, MSN [Bot]