OT: meat is Murder

[Kodama]

as opposed to a lion that would rip them into small pieces by the way

The old natural predator argument.

1. The lion is a natural born predator.

2. The lion does not rape, inbreed, or genetically modify it's prey

3. Humans have access to a little concept called ethics and choice

4. Lions do not spread across the planet by the billions, drive SUVs, clear rainforest to grow hamburgers, skin tens of thousands of seals and throw them in a land fill (you might have skimmed past that part), etc...

5. Lions do not confine their prey for years. Consider confinement. Seriously. Animals that travel many miles a day in nature and live by social interaction are not able to cope with confinement. They pace in their confinement, chew their own limbs, chew on each other, and go mad.

[Kodama]

I dont take opposition to farming because I dont find it offensive.

Offensive?

No, you don't take offense to it because it hasn't happened to you, and you don't imagine that it could.

[stringtapper]

"That movie was entertaining"

Likely - you would have to take the 'X' pill - the experience pill, because you wouldn't care what 'X' is, as long as it didn't happen to you or someone who you deemed deserving.

This very quality is also why humans treat each other like filth, and yes, it is what allowed the holocaust to happen.

And this will never change. To eradicate this human quality would be to eradicate humans entirely. A worthy goal I'd say. Who's up for the challenge? (I'd start with myself but then who would be here to make sure the rest of you followed suit?)

If you eat meat every day for the rest of your life chances are hundreds if not thousands of the animals lives you have eaten were lived in total abject misery, with a brutal and scary death. Deal with it.

Nature is brutal and scary. It's just that standards of living have risen for enough humans that we have now compartmentalized the brutality and the scariness on a scale not known in human history. Before it was the royalty who could have it done for them. Now anyone who isn't already in the business of butchering can have it done for them (I'm talking about first and second world here).

If we fuck it up and don't get to "Star Trek," then things may go "Mad Max" instead, and then the brutality and scariness will return, front and center, for all species to enjoy once again.

[Kodama]

and yes, humans are more deserving.

Even if I take this on face value, does more deserving equal absolutely no value? Because that is what animals are at this moment. Only worthwhile for their flesh, entertainment, or labor.

the holocaust happened because a bunch of stupid people listened to another group of stupid people and mob mentality set it...no personal responsibility or culpability...its a psychological thing. people need to stop comparing everything they dont like to the holocaust, its inappropriate.

Inappropriate? How so? Because one primate is your species and one is not? The main difference between the holocaust and factory farming is that the holocaust ended and was on a much smaller scale. No, it was not a small scale for those involved, but neither is it for each being in a cage at this moment.

"no personal responsibility"

There is always personal responsibility, and there is very often a wrong side of history.

And yes, not having regard for the lives or suffering of the Jews, believing that they were inferior enough to disregard was an essential ingredient of the holocaust.

[jsg4z]

4. Lions do not spread across the planet by the billions, drive SUVs, clear rainforest to grow hamburgers, skin tens of thousands of seals and throw them in a land fill (you might have skimmed past that part), etc...

actually, you bring up another interesting Matrix reference...that humans act more like a virus on this planet than an animal. i agree with you that lions don't build Escalades and furnish their homes with endangered tree furniture and flooring. we in no way find a balance with nature like most animals. but can't that be ok? nature is more powerful than us and if it wants to, it could wipe us off the planet with a tsunami, ice age, meteor, volcano, earth quake etc. so for now lets eat marinated beef with grilled corn and roasted potatoes with garlic, onion, salt, pepper and olive oil before we get hit with an ass-f-ck comet to the face.

[Kodama]

"That movie was entertaining"

Likely - you would have to take the 'X' pill - the experience pill, because you wouldn't care what 'X' is, as long as it didn't happen to you or someone who you deemed deserving.

This very quality is also why humans treat each other like filth, and yes, it is what allowed the holocaust to happen.

And this will never change. To eradicate this human quality would be to eradicate humans entirely. A worthy goal I'd say. Who's up for the challenge? (I'd start with myself but then who would be here to make sure the rest of you followed suit?)

Valuing ethics the way we value constant gratification, religion, or money, that would change things. Not saying we can't enjoy gratification or make money, but quit being the shrine for them.

[loquat]

Gimme a hot dog!

[jsg4z]

Inappropriate? How so? Because one primate is your species and one is not? The main difference between the holocaust and factory farming is that the holocaust ended and was on a much smaller scale. No, it was not a small scale for those involved, but neither is it for each being in a cage at this moment.

"no personal responsibility"

There is always personal responsibility, and there is very often a wrong side of history.

And yes, not having regard for the lives or suffering of the Jews, believing that they were inferior enough to disregard was an essential ingredient of the holocaust.

its one thing to judge an ant, antelope or monkey as inferior, but judging another human as inferior has got to be worse on the get-into-heaven scale. like i said, it has to be one way or the other...you can't have ants, antelopes and humans be equal and not equal at the same time.

"no personal responsibility" refers to mob behavior where peoples' individuality is lost and decision making goes out the window. its what happens when large groups of people act together. there was a good CSI episode about the effect.

[stringtapper]

And this will never change. To eradicate this human quality would be to eradicate humans entirely. A worthy goal I'd say. Who's up for the challenge? (I'd start with myself but then who would be here to make sure the rest of you followed suit?)

Valuing ethics the way we value constant gratification, religion, or money, that would change things. Not saying we can't enjoy gratification or make money, but quit being the shrine for them.

But these notions of "ethics" or "morals" will never be valued as much as gratification from things like eating meat (eating anything, really), making money (a "notion" in and of itself), having sex, "believing there's a big guy with a beard in the sky looking down on us and keeping us safe," etc., as long as the chemical reactions in our bodies and brains that result from these actions are stronger than the ones we get from being "ethical" and "moral."

In the end the things that drive human behavior are those that stimulate us to keep living, survival being the "prime directive."

[jsg4z]

survival is the prime directive, and right up there is sex(maybe included in #1) and understanding (sad side effect of big brain). the search for reason in chaos has created the "big guy with a beard in the sky looking down on us" and mortally injured personal responsibility

[shai]

eating = habits = culture

i am half a year vegan and i LOVE coffee with soy milk. because i'm used to it.

i taught myself to hate meat (based on good reasons) and am being disgusted by milk. it happened almost over night.

my point is, is there an instinctive, biological reason to feel this or the other way towards food? probably, yes, a bit, but way less than you imagine. there are many things that we passionately eager to have which are just very unhealthy. heck, most the stuff we indulge are potentially bad to our health. sugar is on the top chart of the worst. then cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc. so instead of blaming your "instincts", just learn to tame them to the right direction. it will then start to make a whole, new sense.

[stringtapper]

eating = habits = culture

i am half a year vegan and i LOVE coffee with soy milk. because i'm used to it.

i taught myself to hate meat (based on good reasons) and am being disgusted by milk. it happened almost over night.

my point is, is there an instinctive, biological reason to feel this or the other way towards food? probably, yes, a bit, but way less than you imagine. there are many things that we passionately eager to have which are just very unhealthy. heck, most the stuff we indulge are potentially bad to our health. sugar is on the top chart of the worst. then cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc. so instead of blaming your "instincts", just learn to tame them to the right direction. it will then start to make a whole, new sense.

Blame implies something "wrong" has been done. "Wrong" versus "right" implies a moral dilemma. I have no such moral dilemmas. Certainly not about what I eat.

Now your observation that we crave things that are not good for us in a nutritional sense is a good one ("good" in the sense of "helpful to the discussion"). Notice I stated earlier that the actions we take are based on those things that "stimulate us to keep living." That doesn't mean that it's necessarily instinctual that we eat or even live in ways that are the healthiest for our bodies. Some things stimulate us to want to keep living.


A Brief Phenomenology of Why I Eat Steak:

I like most animals. I don't like to see or know about animals being hurt. It does something to me inside. Makes me feel a little panicky. I don't like to think about a cow being slaughtered because it gives me a physical reaction that is uncomfortable to me. So what do I do? I don't think about cows being slaughtered.

I also like steak. It does something to me inside. Makes me feel kind of content, maybe even happy. I don't always eat steak but when I do I am usually happy. Sometimes I want to eat steak and I perceive that it will make me happy. So what do I do? Sometimes I eat steak.

I won't die if I don't eat steak. I also won't die if I see or hear about cows being slaughtered. Eating steak makes me happy. Thinking about cows being slaughtered makes me unhappy. When I am happy I want to live. When I am unhappy I don't like living so much.

One of my favorite pastimes is eating steak and not thinking about cows being slaughtered.

It's just one of those little things that makes me want to live.


So why change when I have already learned to adapt to my environment? On some moral grounds? But what if my morals aren't the same as those who disagree? Would they impose theirs on me? Is it not a staple of our modern "progressive" thought that such notions as "morals" not be imposed on others? Or is it only the moral restrictions that "we" agree with that are permissible?

[shai]

eating = habits = culture

i am half a year vegan and i LOVE coffee with soy milk. because i'm used to it.

i taught myself to hate meat (based on good reasons) and am being disgusted by milk. it happened almost over night.

my point is, is there an instinctive, biological reason to feel this or the other way towards food? probably, yes, a bit, but way less than you imagine. there are many things that we passionately eager to have which are just very unhealthy. heck, most the stuff we indulge are potentially bad to our health. sugar is on the top chart of the worst. then cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc. so instead of blaming your "instincts", just learn to tame them to the right direction. it will then start to make a whole, new sense.

Blame implies something "wrong" has been done. "Wrong" versus "right" implies a moral dilemma. I have no such moral dilemmas. Certainly not about what I eat.

Now your observation that we crave things that are not good for us in a nutritional sense is a good one ("good" in the sense of "helpful to the discussion"). Notice I stated earlier that the actions we take are based on those things that "stimulate us to keep living." That doesn't mean that it's necessarily instinctual that we eat or even live in ways that are the healthiest for our bodies. Some things stimulate us to want to keep living.


A Brief Phenomenology of Why I Eat Steak:

I like most animals. I don't like to see or know about animals being hurt. It does something to me inside. Makes me feel a little panicky. I don't like to think about a cow being slaughtered because it gives me a physical reaction that is uncomfortable to me. So what do I do? I don't think about cows being slaughtered.

I also like steak. It does something to me inside. Makes me feel kind of content, maybe even happy. I don't always eat steak but when I do I am usually happy. Sometimes I want to eat steak and I perceive that it will make me happy. So what do I do? Sometimes I eat steak.

I won't die if I don't eat steak. I also won't die if I see or hear about cows being slaughtered. Eating steak makes me happy. Thinking about cows being slaughtered makes me unhappy. When I am happy I want to live. When I am unhappy I don't like living so much.

One of my favorite pastimes is eating steak and not thinking about cows being slaughtered.

It's just one of those little things that makes me want to live.


So why change when I have already learned to adapt to my environment? On some moral grounds? But what if my morals aren't the same as those who disagree? Would they impose theirs on me? Is it not a staple of our modern "progressive" thought that such notions as "morals" not be imposed on others? Or is it only the moral restrictions that "we" agree with that are permissible?

there was no intention to impose anything. but your little steak poem is kind of lame, sorry, if it's really yours. it falls short of any moral standard. it's called too Nihilism. it's the "small head" attitude. the worst of all. i do it, cause i likeit doopidoop. it makes me feel nicey, yummy, lalala. there's no place for such idiot village (lack of) attitude in our modern era. and to me (and it might shock you now) is the byproduct of the christian/western moral standard of accepting everything about yourself as a reaction to blaming yourself for everything. it's a very common way of thinking in north europe btw and a straight result of the severe catholic/protestant education.

while accepting your habits, and well, everything that "is", is the ultimate starting point, what makes you human is your ability to think past this stage and design your life and culture.

[Salty P]

Kodama,

You are everything that's wrong with the vegan argument.

How about you stop telling people that they're wrong and have no ethics. I've heard this mindless rhetoric countless times from miserable, pasty-faced, mother-fuckers, completely unwilling to listen to another point of view.

I dont take opposition to farming because I dont find it offensive.

Offensive?

No, you don't take offense to it because it hasn't happened to you, and you don't imagine that it could.

What sort of idiotic comment is that?




You care more about having a smug sense of moral superiority than any notion of animal rights, in fact I'm sure when you're with friends supping back soy frappuccinos, you'll be getting a kick out of telling them, how many morally reprehensible DJ's you're better than on the ableton forum.



When did you get to decide what morality is? Maybe if you communicated like an adult instead of dictating to people, you might reach more people.

[Ed J]

The main problem with this thread is that now, I'm really hungry =]

*wanders off to eat rendered cow-flesh*