Animal protection is the most noble cause

[KAICHEN1988]

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.

We must protect animals.

Like human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.

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.

We do not advocate "protecting mosquitoes".

Vertebrate animals, especially mammals and birds, have developed advanced nervous systems, therefore having strong feeling and consciousness.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We must not kill animals, even though animals keep killing each other.

If a child who is three or four years old killed a man, you cannot condemn the child, because it knows nothing. Similarly, animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. In fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child.

However, adult humans' intelligence is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Therefore, for adult humans, doing such behaviors is obviously evil.

We must not follow the law of nature.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The laws of nature are brutal, but human morality is empathetic. Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

We should be more concerned about animals than people.

The suffering and misery faced by animals are far more severe than people's hardship. At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.

Moreover, humans can be good or evil, but animals are all innocent and lovable, just like children.

Rich people and elites have strong power, but always squander the power on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

[iambiguous]

As with all other human value judgments, reasonable arguments can be made both pro and con regarding animal rights.

For example:

https://animal-testing.procon.org/
https://vegetarian.procon.org/

Thus, out in the world of actual human interactions, particular laws must be enacted to either prescribe or proscribe particular sets of behaviors.

And, in my view, there are combinations of three approaches here.

1] might makes right: those who have the power to enforce behaviors they construe to be in their own best interests prevail
2] right makes might: those able to demonstrate that one set of behaviors is inherently or necessarily more ethical than any other are able to call the shots --- the "philosopher king" approach to governing
3] Moderation, negotiation and compromise: those convinced that since both sides have access to reasonable arguments, the law should revolve around democratic institutions -- an ongoing "best of all possible world" approach to governing

How would you describe yourself here?

[lordoflight]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

Simply out of curiosity, what is it that prompts you to respond as you do here?

I suspect there are particular things that really, really piss you off. But there isn't much you can do about them and so you take every opportunity instead to huff and puff about things like this. Cathartically as it were?

Or are you actually convinced this sort of vitriol contributes [philosophically] to the question at hand?

If not, why take it out on us?

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

And then it gets tricky. We can manage not to eat animals, but before they end up creating some horrific glop in the lab, we do need to eat plants.

[iambiguous]

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.

Yes, there actually is a debate about it among folks a lot more sophisticated about this stuff then most of us are likely to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat

But the bottom line is that few will argue plants are not the stuff of life. They are living things.

And while some people become enraged when the big plants like trees are cut down, they think nothing of gobbling up all the little plants. And that's because there is nothing to think about. You eat them or you die.

And what of those hunters and gathers still around that rely on hunting down animals in order to subsist from day to day.

This is just another issue that can only be grappled with in particular contexts construed from particular subjective points of view rooted in dasein.

[Mr Reasonable]

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]

I forgot we had a stuffed quail as well.

[MagsJ]

I forgot we had a stuffed quail as well.

Pheasant is equally tasty..

Not all people can eat all soil-grown produce, just as most vegetarians and vegans choose to become vegetarians and vegans.. the latter being a choice, but not the former.

[iambiguous]

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.

How to wrap your head around something like this?

Unless of course he is only being ironic?

It's like telling the folks from PETA to go screw themselves: "Not only am I a meat eater, but I revel in it. So fuck off!!"

And while indeed the animals he stuffed himself with may well have suffered before they died, this is just not something of any importance to him.

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? Like the arguments from those on the other side of the political spectrum here aren't even worth considering at all.

Unless, of course, that too is just another existential contraption.

[Mr Reasonable]

Because it feels good. Thanks for calling me arrogant and reiterating your mental illness.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

Here we have Iamb's repeat of the position on objective goods.

But what drives some folks to this sort of flagrant arrogance?

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

He is am outraged over his flagrant arrogance.

Here the other person just went too far and is clearly being bad, no disclaimer. In fact the moral position on meat, which can be explained via dasein, is clearly counterposed with the outrage of being flagrently arrogant. For some reason even dasein can't achieve this clear evil.

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.

Though for some reason he thinks that he can't judge positions on eating meat, but can judge flagrent arrogance.

Judging others morally while at the same time judging others for not realizing like him that morals are not objective does not lead to problems. Research shows this, lol.

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.

Good to see some things never change around here.

[Serendipper]

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.

Oh, the egg probably doesn't count as a chicken. The guy who runs the corner store is a vegan from India and I usually give him veggies from the garden, so I offered some ducks eggs, but he declined citing that he doesn't kill to live. He said ,"No walking, running, flying, swimming, but just standing." (I thought it was clever.) But I said I don't have male ducks, just females, so there is no potential for the eggs to become anything. He couldn't understand how I have eggs without males and decided to be on the safe side by refusing the eggs anyway. I have piles of eggs laying around that never amount to anything and eventually the water evaporates out leaving an empty eggshell as light as a feather.

[iambiguous]

Because it feels good.

Okay, but that sort of argument is one often attributed to narcissists and/or sociopaths.

A moral narrative that revolves entirely around "me", "myself" and "I".

One might even feel good torturing an animal to death.

And I recognize this as a frame of mind rooted existentially in dasein. A frame of mind that is not able to be demonstrated as necessarily bad.

I'm just curious as to why and how you have come express this particular point of view yourself. What are the variables in your own life that predisposed you to this rather then the opposite frame of mind?

Thanks for calling me arrogant and reiterating your mental illness.

Just out of curiosity, what makes me mentally ill in your opinion?

[iambiguous]

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.

Here we have Iamb's repeat of the position on objective goods.

Over and again I make it clear that my own argument here is just another existential contraption. In other words, until someone among us is able to concoct an argument about anmal rights able to be demonstrated as in fact distinguishing objectively between good from bad behavior, "I" am stuck with the components of my own argument [re conflicting goods] here and now.

But what drives some folks to this sort of flagrant arrogance?

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...

Yes, but at least I recogize that my own reaction to Mr Reasonable is just another subjective fabrication. I'm not arguing that his post is in fact and beyond all doubt an example of "flagrant arrogance". Only that [existentially] it seems that way to me here and now.

He surely knows that any number of folks will be outraged by his account above. So he appears to be rubbing it in their face.

If logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" to what extent is eating or not eating animals valid? To what extent can logic be useful here in answering that question? Are there limits beyond which logic becomes increasingly more ineffectual?

Well, it depends on the context, right? A context construed from a point of view. A context which will include either/or components able to be confirmed as applicable to all of us, and is/ought components able only to be attributed to particular value judgments rooted in particular political prejudices derived [from my point of view] as much from dasein as from the tools of philosophy and science.

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.

I can only note yet again that my own value judgments are construed by me to be existential contraptions rooted largely in the political prejudices that I have come to embody over the course of actually living my life. Thus my judgments are deemed right from the start to be profoundly problematic. And ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas.

All the while acknowledging that there may well be an objective good here able to be discerned by philosophers or scientists.

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.

Again this is your existential rendition of what you construe to be my existential rendition regarding Mr Reasonable's alleged flagrant arrogance. All we can do is to leave it up to others to decide for themselves if it is or is not reasonable to describe his post in that manner.

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[iambiguous]

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]

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.

Yes, if anything is cooked just so, it can be construed as good I guess, but I bought a cut of lamb once and had to open all the windows to evacuate the smell. That experience has even affected my tolerance for venison... if that blood isn't drained quickly and the meat chilled immediately, it resembles lamb a lot. I'd rather eat my own foot than attempting choking anything that smells like that down lol

People say they soak it in milk or coke and then drown it in soy sauce and tons of spices and then it's pretty good. My reply to that is why not have beef then? If you can't taste the meat, then why does the kind of meat matter?

Turtles killed a couple of my ducks, so I fried up the breasts and yeah, I fed that shit to the cats. Same with squirrel and rabbit. Cats like dry meat.

The distance is probably not worth duck eggs and thanks to the turtles, I don't have as many as before. Sometimes I set eggs in front of trail cams where they sit for weeks before suddenly disappearing with nothing on the cam. It has to be some type of reptile finally chancing upon them and not being warm enough to trigger the cam. But basically, I feel like I can't even give the damn things to wildlife lol

What's wrong with Red Lobster? It's not as good as it used to be, but you could get at least half a dozen species on one plate.

[Serendipper]

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.

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.

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.

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. 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?

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]

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.

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.

ILP seems to be more an extension of "social media" for him. Though he is clearly very intelligent and is more than capable of contributing real substance to the discussions. Just not [in my own opinion] down to earth.

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.

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:

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?

[Serendipper]

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.

You're right, it can't be deemed objectively right or wrong, but if you want to talk to him, you may have to make concessions and be more accommodating to his eccentricities. It just depends how much you want a dialog with him for the sake of your own learning. If it's not worth it, then to hell with it, but only you can decide because there is no objectively right or wrong thing to do.

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".

Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.

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.

I think this situation is itself example of one of those interactions coming into conflict lol. I'm not sure he's willing to meet you half way, especially since you have nothing that he wants and he has what you want. Bringing it down to earth: it's chapstick time!

That's basically my interest in philosophy: How ought one to live? After all, perhaps the answer can be pinned down philosophically.

Sure it can! You ought to live in accordance with your goals. If you want to talk to him, then you ought to do _________. If it doesn't matter that much, then there is nothing you ought to do.

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.

If it's true, then it will suck when it's no longer true.

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.

How did it come to pass that natural beings, such as humans, cannot exist solely on plant diets?

Most omnivorous people in developed countries obtain enough vitamin B12 from consuming animal products including, meat, fish, eggs, and milk,[6] but there are no vegan sources other than B12-fortified foods or B12 supplements.

B12 is only produced in nature by certain bacteria, and archaea.[17][18][19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Sources

When apes lost their big fermentation chamber guts and became human, they could no longer subsist on vegetation. Why not? Because they were eating meat and there was no longer a mechanism selecting for humans with big guts that could absorb B12 and ferment vegetation to extract other nutrients.

And humans are poor converters of K1 to K2 because K2 is of such abundance in meat and an herbaceous diet is heavily reliant on gut flora to make the conversion, so once again, as we transitioned to meat, we became more reliant upon it.

Also with carotene and vitamin A.

Also, sweating is evidence of hunting. Why do we sweat? Because we have no fangs or claws and can't run that fast, but we can hunt in the heat when other animals can't stay cool enough to run. https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-08-28/ ... n-function

And wearing their furs is almost certainly how we lost our hair.

Not only did we use animals for labor, but we also used their guts to digest plants, and then we ate the animal. By doing so, we lost the ability ourselves, and the fact the ability is gone is the empirical evidence for all to see.

As far as counterarguments...

My stepdad is a vegan. He makes cheese from cashews and has a plant-based substitute for just about everything. He spends a LOT of time in the kitchen and is a perfect example of what I'm talking about regarding time left over to study the charming irrelevancies of life. He's had skin cancer twice (redhead), his fist wife died of cancer, and mom's health has deteriorated markedly since she married him. He's a 7th day adventist, who are supposedly the healthiest people on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

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:

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?

Well, there may exist people who have more respect for those who kill randomly and for the hell of it. They are welcome to see how that philosophy serves them, I suppose.

I look for qualities in people which serve my own goals and not objective righteousness, even though the people I'm choosing are serving objective righteousness. Fine, I guess. But I think they also see that looking out for each other is in each other's best interest and it's just coincidentally "objectively right" as a bonus. Everyone will always do what's best for him, and if I can convince him what's best for him is what's best for me, then I'll never need to worry about objective laws.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.

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.

[MagsJ]

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?

[Serendipper]

Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.

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.

I'm a rough tough creampuff

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.

1/4 cup cashews
1.5 heaping tablespoons yeast flakes
2 heaping teaspoons all purpose flour
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 tablespoons lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon coarse ground celtic salt
1/2 small fresno pepper
1/4 of an onion
1/4 of a tomato
1 clove garlic

I'm not sure of the mixing procedure, but that's the ingredients mom wrote.

It doesn't taste like mac n cheese, but it's good in its own way.

Also, try some cucumber on your mexican food. I would have never thought of doing that.

Well.. vegans rapidly become malnourished, so what is that telling us?

I don't know. Mom's father says she wasn't raised like that and it can't be good for her. Grandma and grandpa refuse to eat it. It's a little bit funny watching a 75 yr old man try to tell a 95 yr old man how to be healthy lol