365 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

evidently you crazy guys haven't heard of the food chain

Attached Files

•  TheFoodChain.gif   134.06KB   4 downloads

[forever freedom]

Now that's what i'm talking about

Edited by sam988, 14 September 2008 - 03:23 AM.

[niner]

Nice Food Chain pic, Elrond. Aside from that, what are today's crop of posts in this thread, the "I have no empathy club"? Psychopathy Anonymous? I eat typical barnyard quadrupeds, sparingly; fish, and various birds. I don't eat veal or anything that I know to be cruelty-associated. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the process by which the meat that I eat is raised and killed. I don't think that killing these animals is particularly horrible. I'm more concerned about how they live.

[abolitionist]

Might makes right.. that was the point of my post if you didn't notice..

As for the elites, my positions is that we should try to become one of them, and not whine about being "opressed"! Whining is for the hopeless, if you're not satisfied about your current position, instead of whining about the unjustices of the world and trying to change the whole system, just go along with it, adapt, and become one of the powerful ones.

Against your current limiting belief that's going to keep you from achieving greater things, this is a free society, anyone can rise and become a better person and have a better position than they were born with, it's all up to you and how much effort you put into it. The "opression" is mostly in your mind.


Sorry to go off-topic, but abolitionist started! *points at abolitionist in a childish way*

If you join a masonic lodge, you might someday make it to Bohemian grove where you too can perform the cremation of care ritual and have fun with other bigwigs and hundreds of male prostitutes...

but that's a big might

this is not a free society! who told you that?!

sure you can make money and improve your social standing within a relative game of might makes right - but remember the hedonic treadmill (it won't help you)

how high you can go is controlled and those at the top have no interest in helping you achieve immortality or transcending your genetic programming

they want to keep you just as you are now

accept for the ever-increasing surveillance and dystopian control

oh, by the way, you can't leave America now without forfeiting your assets due to involuntary war debt from foreign invasions for elite interests

and congress allows the military to experiment on the public secretly/involuntarily as long as they are notified

don't believe me, do you?

the game must be changed fundamentally, wake up neo

Edited by abolitionist, 14 September 2008 - 04:57 AM.

[abolitionist]

stratification due to might makes right is what should be called evil

this applies to the might makes right food chain as well as elitist dystopias

---------

how cruel it is to create human beings/animals to be part of such a might makes right game where they are fodder for the careless powerful

especially considering how they aren't allowed to change or choose the game they are forced into

Edited by abolitionist, 14 September 2008 - 05:01 AM.

[abolitionist]

Nice Food Chain pic, Elrond. Aside from that, what are today's crop of posts in this thread, the "I have no empathy club"? Psychopathy Anonymous? I eat typical barnyard quadrupeds, sparingly; fish, and various birds. I don't eat veal or anything that I know to be cruelty-associated. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the process by which the meat that I eat is raised and killed. I don't think that killing these animals is particularly horrible. I'm more concerned about how they live.

it's possible to give animals a rich and full life and then humanely kill them before they die of natural causes then eat their meat

but what is the reality?

a horrible existance watching your kin be slaughtered waiting for the death blow yourself

you think those meat farmers give a shit? those animals are simply annuities to them

http://www.meat.org/

[JLL]

Well first of all, Russians are humans (I think), so there is no biological reason for Russians to eat other people.

Secondly, Russians certainly have the potential to understand other people whether or not they share a common language. They could for example use sign language ("get away from me with that steak knife" is pretty universal) or get an interpreter.

just like we could understand animals if we cared, these Russians don't really care about understanding you

because you don't speak their language they think you are inferior and therefore they are justified in eating you

(it's obvious that animals don't like the way they are treated by the meat industry)

eating your meat tastes good, sure they could eat animals but they simply like the taste of human flesh

that's the only biological need that humans have to eat animals - which is really just a taste preference

You're ignoring pretty much everything I've said.

I assume that you care about animals; apparently it follows - according to your logic - that you can also understand animals. Is this correct?

If eating animals is morally wrong, you've just condemned almost every person who's ever lived as an immoral person. If a moral theory is such that its guidelines are or have previously been impossible to follow (supplements are a pretty recent invention), it's quite likely that there's something wrong with the theory. Are you saying that for example the Masai are immoral because they eat meat almost exclusively?

If there really is no fundamental difference between humans and animals and their moral systems, then it also follows that at least all carnivorous animals are immoral. Would you agree?

[forever freedom]

Might makes right.. that was the point of my post if you didn't notice..

As for the elites, my positions is that we should try to become one of them, and not whine about being "opressed"! Whining is for the hopeless, if you're not satisfied about your current position, instead of whining about the unjustices of the world and trying to change the whole system, just go along with it, adapt, and become one of the powerful ones.

Against your current limiting belief that's going to keep you from achieving greater things, this is a free society, anyone can rise and become a better person and have a better position than they were born with, it's all up to you and how much effort you put into it. The "opression" is mostly in your mind.


Sorry to go off-topic, but abolitionist started! *points at abolitionist in a childish way*

If you join a masonic lodge, you might someday make it to Bohemian grove where you too can perform the cremation of care ritual and have fun with other bigwigs and hundreds of male prostitutes...

but that's a big might

this is not a free society! who told you that?!

sure you can make money and improve your social standing within a relative game of might makes right - but remember the hedonic treadmill (it won't help you)

how high you can go is controlled and those at the top have no interest in helping you achieve immortality or transcending your genetic programming

they want to keep you just as you are now

accept for the ever-increasing surveillance and dystopian control

oh, by the way, you can't leave America now without forfeiting your assets due to involuntary war debt from foreign invasions for elite interests

and congress allows the military to experiment on the public secretly/involuntarily as long as they are notified

don't believe me, do you?

the game must be changed fundamentally, wake up neo

I think you've created a load of crap theories in your head to justify your unwillingness to take responsibility for your life and where you are at it. To think that you're a slave and then blame it in some mysterious "elite" entities... way to go, i hope you have sweet dreams for the rest of your life, at least they will keep you happy in your little shell.

Edited by sam988, 14 September 2008 - 05:03 PM.

[abolitionist]

I think you've created a load of crap theories in your head to justify your unwillingness to take responsibility for your life and where you are at it. To think that you're a slave and then blame it in some mysterious "elite" entities... way to go, i hope you have sweet dreams for the rest of your life, at least they will keep you happy in your little shell.

all you have to do is verify
our government is fundamentally corrupt and they are experimenting on the people and restricting science - this isn't my opinion

I'm not here to bitch about my personal life, this is a problem that affects all of us

do you think that I created these theories? if so, you haven't investigated them

Edited by abolitionist, 18 September 2008 - 06:26 AM.

[abolitionist]

"To think that you're a slave and then blame it in some mysterious "elite" entities..."

Yes, it's the elite that prevents us from working towards altering the hedonic treadmill and changing our genes.. and until we do we are slaves.

I tend to think that most people really don't care if Transhumanists alter themselves as long as they don't hurt others - most people believe in 'live and let live'

It's the governments owned by globalist elitists who are stopping research, here's a good example;

http://www.abolition...opic.php?t=1532

"The Bush admin finds dignity in your suffering"

Edited by abolitionist, 18 September 2008 - 10:55 AM.

[abolitionist]

You're ignoring pretty much everything I've said.

I assume that you care about animals; apparently it follows - according to your logic - that you can also understand animals. Is this correct?

If eating animals is morally wrong, you've just condemned almost every person who's ever lived as an immoral person. If a moral theory is such that its guidelines are or have previously been impossible to follow (supplements are a pretty recent invention), it's quite likely that there's something wrong with the theory. Are you saying that for example the Masai are immoral because they eat meat almost exclusively?

If there really is no fundamental difference between humans and animals and their moral systems, then it also follows that at least all carnivorous animals are immoral. Would you agree?

the majority of people are also wantonly ignorant... yes they are immoral

why is it impossible to follow? why does a long standing tradition make something right? Why does mass approval make something right?

[JLL]

Mass approval makes nothing right. I think "might is right" is bullshit.

However, it is a strange idea that all humans before the invention of supplements have had no choice but to basically starve or be immoral. If it is practically impossible for the majority of people to follow a moral law, then I would argue it is a bad moral law.

The most convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that if we decide whether or not is moral to eat something based on its cognitive abilities (or rather the lack of them), then it follows that it is also moral to eat braindead people. This leaves out the whole biological aspect of how humans evolved, but it is a good argument nonetheless.

The rest of the arguments from the vegetarian camp... not so convincing.

Edited by JLL, 18 September 2008 - 11:22 AM.

[abolitionist]

Mass approval makes nothing right. I think "might is right" is bullshit.

However, it is a strange idea that all humans before the invention of supplements have had no choice but to basically starve or be immoral. If it is practically impossible for the majority of people to follow a moral law, then I would argue it is a bad moral law.

The most convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that if we decide whether or not is moral to eat something based on its cognitive abilities (or rather the lack of them), then it follows that it is also moral to eat braindead people. This leaves out the whole biological aspect of how humans evolved, but it is a good argument nonetheless.

The rest of the arguments from the vegetarian camp... not so convincing.

I have to step aside for a second and think it's ironic that we're debating rationales when humans do not make rational decisions

Rationality is historically always out of reach - like an ideal.

I would think that if it's truly practically impossible to avoid eating meat for survival purposes - it would be better to kill an animal than starve.

We don't currently have the infrastructure setup for truly meatless society, but we do have the technological capability to do so - we simply lack the will.

Meat alternatives are better for you and can taste potentially however you want which almost unlimited textures and consistencies.

If we simply stopped animal cruelty in meatfarming, it would be a huge step foward.

Edited by abolitionist, 18 September 2008 - 03:42 PM.

[JLL]

What is the purpose of ethics? I'd like to hear your answer to this.

When people walk over a bridge, they have the choice to jump off it or to not jump off it. Most will choose not to jump off it. Is this not a rational decision? Or are you simply claiming that people sometimes make irrational decisions as well?

[abolitionist]

What is the purpose of ethics? I'd like to hear your answer to this.

When people walk over a bridge, they have the choice to jump off it or to not jump off it. Most will choose not to jump off it. Is this not a rational decision? Or are you simply claiming that people sometimes make irrational decisions as well?

if people don't make rational decisions, what is the point of ethics?

to inspire us and provide a direction, we can also change our irrationality eventually

[JLL]

I just pointed out that people do make rational decisions, just not all the time.

If the point of ethics is to inspire and provide a direction, how can you say that eating meat is wrong? What if eating meat inspires people and gives them a direction? Then by your own definition they are moral. I'm not satisfied with this definition, nor should you.

[cyborgdreamer]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

[forever freedom]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

Quite a moral system you got there eh? Basing your morals on guesses... if you can't prove that mammals (except us of course) and birds are more conscious than other animals, then deep inside i guess you don't really care about whether the living being that's dying is conscious or not.

[cyborgdreamer]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

Quite a moral system you got there eh? Basing your morals on guesses... if you can't prove that mammals (except us of course) and birds are more conscious than other animals, then deep inside i guess you don't really care about whether the living being that's dying is conscious or not.

Pescetarian means that I don't eat mammals and birds. If they are conscious (and want to stay that way), then I don't want any part in killing them. If they aren't conscious than avoiding their meat doesn't hurt anything.

[forever freedom]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

Quite a moral system you got there eh? Basing your morals on guesses... if you can't prove that mammals (except us of course) and birds are more conscious than other animals, then deep inside i guess you don't really care about whether the living being that's dying is conscious or not.

Pescetarian means that I don't eat mammals and birds. If they are conscious (and want to stay that way), then I don't want any part in killing them. If they aren't conscious than avoiding their meat doesn't hurt anything.

I'm not talking about eating mammals and birds, i'm talking about eating fishes thinking that they feel any less pain/suffering when they die than birds and mammals.

[cyborgdreamer]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

Quite a moral system you got there eh? Basing your morals on guesses... if you can't prove that mammals (except us of course) and birds are more conscious than other animals, then deep inside i guess you don't really care about whether the living being that's dying is conscious or not.

Pescetarian means that I don't eat mammals and birds. If they are conscious (and want to stay that way), then I don't want any part in killing them. If they aren't conscious than avoiding their meat doesn't hurt anything.

I'm not talking about eating mammals and birds, i'm talking about eating fishes thinking that they feel any less pain/suffering when they die than birds and mammals.

Well, okay, fish might be susceptible to physical pain so I should really only eat fish that are humanely killed. However, I'm not talking about physical pain; I'm talking about the emotional horror that that humans feel (whether they admit it or not) toward death. I don't see how anything in the fish's brain could make them experiance that.

[JLL]

So you've chosen emotional pain over physical pain as the attribute for deciding whether killing something is moral or not. Why?

I'm not saying that's the wrong choice, but it's not obvious either.

[forever freedom]

I eat a pescetarian diet and I don't buy leather, though I occasionally use products containing gelatin.

I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy any consious being that has a will to live. However, since we can't teach animals the difference between life and death, and then ask how they feel about it, I have to make an educated guess. Birds and mammals have complex brains and I honestly don't know how their emotion systems would respond to the idea of death. However, fish brains are so simple that I doubt they're even conscious, let alone have any emotion analagous to the human will to live.

Quite a moral system you got there eh? Basing your morals on guesses... if you can't prove that mammals (except us of course) and birds are more conscious than other animals, then deep inside i guess you don't really care about whether the living being that's dying is conscious or not.

Pescetarian means that I don't eat mammals and birds. If they are conscious (and want to stay that way), then I don't want any part in killing them. If they aren't conscious than avoiding their meat doesn't hurt anything.

I'm not talking about eating mammals and birds, i'm talking about eating fishes thinking that they feel any less pain/suffering when they die than birds and mammals.

Well, okay, fish might be susceptible to physical pain so I should really only eat fish that are humanely killed. However, I'm not talking about physical pain; I'm talking about the emotional horror that that humans feel (whether they admit it or not) toward death. I don't see how anything in the fish's brain could make them experiance that.

Yes, humans may feel more horror about death than other animals. But we're not comparing humans and other animals here, we're comparing fishes and other animals. What makes you think that fishes are "dumber" or "less conscious about death and life, therefore feeling less emotional pain" than other animals? I just did a search on google on fish intelligence and look what i found: http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/3189941.stm

We don't know much about fishes' intelligence so until we do, if you really follow your morals, you wouldn't eat them would you?

[cyborgdreamer]

So you've chosen emotional pain over physical pain as the attribute for deciding whether killing something is moral or not. Why?

I'm not saying that's the wrong choice, but it's not obvious either.

The emotional pain can imbue a strong desire to survive, while physical pain only makes you want to avoid feeling more pain. If a being doesn't care whether it lives or dies, than it's okay to kill it painlessly.

Yes, humans may feel more horror about death than other animals. But we're not comparing humans and other animals here, we're comparing fishes and other animals. What makes you think that fishes are "dumber" or "less conscious about death and life, therefore feeling less emotional pain" than other animals? I just did a search on google on fish intelligence and look what i found: http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/3189941.stm

We don't know much about fishes' intelligence so until we do, if you really follow your morals, you wouldn't eat them would you?

Wow, I didn't know that. Maybe I should rethink eating fish.

[abolitionist]

spindle neurons and mirror neurons indicate a possibility of the same types of complex emotional patterns and intelligence that humans have

[Dmitri]

I realize there are a great many variations on vegetarianism, so I'll define the choices for this poll. If there is one that closely matches you but with a small difference, pick it and explain.

Vegan - don't use food products involving death of an animal or animal byproducts (dairy, eggs..)
Vegetarian - don't use food products involving death of an animal
Pescetarian - don't use food products involving death of an animal, except fish/shellfish
Meat eater - killing animals to eat or for materials is ok
Other - please describe

I'm trying to emulate a macrobiotic diet; I’m not 100% into the diet yet since I still eat red meat from time to time (once or twice a month), I eat more sea food and chicken.

I don’t see what the problem is with eating animals though they get eaten by other animals in the wild, I don’t see the difference. I think it’s worse using them in experiments; the problem though is that if we don’t use them our progress in medicine might not have advanced as far as it has.

[Lotus]

I'm a pescetarian. My rationale is to minimize suffering. I started out as a vegetarian and kept the vegetarian diet strictly for about 8 years or so. However, I soon realized that I did not have capabilities to keep to it since I was bad at cooking and nutrition, and I was getting sick and weak and was in a really bad shape. So I started incorporating fish and sea food into my diet. There's no point worrying about the fishes suffering if my diet is making me suffer. My first priority must be my health.

Edited by Lotus, 15 January 2009 - 07:21 PM.

[wydell]

I used to be a vegetarian about 10 years ago. I was a vegetarian for seven years.

Look I may eat animals, but I recognize that killing is not good. Think of yourself being killed, a pet, a friend, or any baby animal.
I hope some day that technology comes to a point where we can achieve optimal health without resorting to killing.
I think it's kind of amusing (or at least ironic) that immortalists seemingly have no issues with killing, even if it is with animals.
I currently eat animals for my own selfish needs like many of you, but it does seem inherently wrong, even if it is the natural order of things.
By the way, death is the natural order of things too. It does not mean it's right or good.

I am a hypocrite in this regard, but I am just laying out my thoughts here.

[
I don’t see what the problem is with eating animals though they get eaten by other animals in the wild, I don’t see the difference. I think it’s worse using them in experiments; the problem though is that if we don’t use them our progress in medicine might not have advanced as far as it has.

[mitkat]

Mass approval makes nothing right. I think "might is right" is bullshit.

However, it is a strange idea that all humans before the invention of supplements have had no choice but to basically starve or be immoral. If it is practically impossible for the majority of people to follow a moral law, then I would argue it is a bad moral law.

The most convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that if we decide whether or not is moral to eat something based on its cognitive abilities (or rather the lack of them), then it follows that it is also moral to eat braindead people. This leaves out the whole biological aspect of how humans evolved, but it is a good argument nonetheless.

The rest of the arguments from the vegetarian camp... not so convincing.

I have to step aside for a second and think it's ironic that we're debating rationales when humans do not make rational decisions

Rationality is historically always out of reach - like an ideal.

I would think that if it's truly practically impossible to avoid eating meat for survival purposes - it would be better to kill an animal than starve.

We don't currently have the infrastructure setup for truly meatless society, but we do have the technological capability to do so - we simply lack the will.

Meat alternatives are better for you and can taste potentially however you want which almost unlimited textures and consistencies.

If we simply stopped animal cruelty in meatfarming, it would be a huge step foward.

Great post abolitionist, agreed 100%. I should check up on this thread more often!

I gave up on the ethical debate personally because I'm getting tired of conversations like these. Too many dinner parties, not to speak of college keggers (agricultural college at that - read: hick) and later university level chin-stroking whilst brow-raising at the idea that no, I'm not going to have a piece of meat to eat. I make a powerful point in my life not to be pedantic about vegetarianism, and I'm never pushy with my views. I wait for the day when some of that comes my way. Until then, full forward on the cloned meat market. That's prime space being wasted on the international monster of McAgribusiness - space that could be used for any kind of real habitation, wildlife or metropolis.

[Grail]

I would say that yes, it is morally wrong to kill and eat other sentient beings if we have the option of living a perfectly full, happy and healthy life by not doing so.
However, I am not against farming, just cruel farming practices. Most of the domesticated livestock we have now would not survive on their own in the wild, or cause damage if they were set free.
For example, chickens. A free-range chicken farm is a low cost, low maintenance and sustainable food source (it's the eggs I'm talking about). The chickens we have bred would not survive long on their own in the wild, but can live in an almost symbiotic relationship with a farmer.

Personally, I currently eat meat. Largely I can attribute this to ignorance, compromise and an addiction to something I have been eating all my life and craving because of the evolution of my species. I'm sure it will change some day, especially when lab grown meat is available. Eventually as we become more emotionally and mentally civilised, the barbarity of our daily lives will become apparent and unbearable to us.

It is easy when you pick up a steak from the supermarket to forget that it comes from an animal that is moving, thinking, eating and sleeping before being barbarically murdered and chopped up so I can cook it up. It sort of makes me feel like I am cheating, and certainly not respecting the animal that I have had murdered on my behalf to make food I don't really need. I wonder, how many people in our world would still eat meat if all of a sudden they had to raise, kill and prepare their own?