|
Bar Ran Dun posted:If you are making distinctions about when human fetus or even a young child acquires sentience are those distinctions also applicable to animals? There's no contradiction in believing leeches might be sentient and that it's wrong to go out and smash them for fun, but it's also perfectly justified to pull one off of you and not be concerned if it can't find another host and dies. Whether a fetus is sentient is beside the point, forced birthers want to make it all about that and only that to justify forcing women to be incubators
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
XboxPants posted:I don't believe this is as settled as you seem to. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ is an article that discusses some of the emerging science in tree intelligence and communication. I believe this is a pretty credible source, even though it's a controversial field. None of these reactions to stimuli that plants exhibit are necessarily sentience. They use a lot of evocative language in the article to imply intention behind what is happening but you could do the same for a computer network with load balancing and resource sharing. Intelligence or information processing, and sentence are not the same thing. This article explains the distinction as I understand it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28875517/#:~:text=Plants%20use%20groups%20of%20coordinated,prioritise%20any%20order%20of%20response. PubMed posted:Plants use groups of coordinated physiological activities to deal with defined environmental situations but currently have no known mental state to prioritise any order of response. Now of course we could eventually prove that this is all true and plants are aware of their reality and there is a subject inside there that can suffer. That would certainly change some behaviors but, as you say, would not be a problem for Veganism and I think it would only strengthen the case for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
Is it not also possible to have a level of respect for plants that is based not in trying to decide whether they are 'equal' to animals, but just that they are different? I tend to work with the logic: - It would be great if I could just survive on air, thus not having to damage or kill any other living being - This is not possible; I must eat something to survive - I can survive and thrive without eating other animals and their secretions So, I eat plants. But I can still have a relationship with them that feels (and yes, I realise this slippery subjective slope) less exploitative and damaging. I harvest plants from the wild, I plant seeds and allow the plant grow through as much of its life as possible before taking it, and so on. I respect plants to the level that I will go out of my way to not step on ones that can't tolerate foot traffic. I also respect them enough to base a large part of my life to understanding them, how to cultivate them and how to survive by them. In fact it's one of the things that frustrates me about vegans - we are usually much more obssessed with animals than plants, even though we have vowed to make the former a much less significant part of our lives. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can still recognise that plants are alive, and there's the interesting idea that they have abilities such as communication. But this doesn't mean that the kind of moral consideration we afford them has to be directly comparable with that we afford to other animals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
crazyvanman posted:Is it not also possible to have a level of respect for plants that is based not in trying to decide whether they are 'equal' to animals, but just that they are different? I tend to work with the logic: I understand the respect idea and wanting to not damage or destroy things of interest. I think that is separate thing from moral consideration though. When a mountaintop is blown up for coal mining or an ancient tree is cut down that generates strong emotions. We want to preserve beauty and wonder, but we do not have to grant a mountain moral consideration in order to have that respect or reverence for something in nature. On a smaller level I project a lot of feelings and emotions on my car. I love that car and would not want to see it smashed. I worry about it when it's parked outside. None of this concern is generated out of a fear that the car can actually suffer or experience the harm. Vegans are obsessed with animals because they are the victims. It makes sense for them to take center stage in the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I understand the respect idea and wanting to not damage or destroy things of interest. I think that is separate thing from moral consideration though. When a mountaintop is blown up for coal mining or an ancient tree is cut down that generates strong emotions. We want to preserve beauty and wonder, but we do not have to grant a mountain moral consideration in order to have that respect or reverence for something in nature. On a smaller level I project a lot of feelings and emotions on my car. I love that car and would not want to see it smashed. I worry about it when it's parked outside. None of this concern is generated out of a fear that the car can actually suffer or experience the harm. Vegans are obsessed with animals because they are the victims. It makes sense for them to take center stage in the conversation. I don't want to derail the thread too much, and I don't want to go too 'woo', but I actually think I do need to morally consider plants and that it is possible to have a meaningful relationship with them. That might be a bit to out there for this thread, but at least consider it this way: if I'm out for a run and I notice too late that I'm about to step on either a stone with one foot or a plant with another, I'd obviously choose the stone (granted, the stone is unlikely to be damaged anyway, but hopefully the point still carries!). Enter, let's say, a snail into the mix, and I choose to step on the plant rather than the snail. So animals still get the highest moral consideration, but there is at least some moral weight to the plant. Equally, if I'm picking nettle leaves, I cut off the minimal amount that I will actually use rather than rip the whole plant up. There's not really any practical reason for this, because even from a sustainability point of view it's unlikely that me pulling up the whole plant will really damage this local population. To bring it back to the point of the thread, though, it's still true that the more sentience/moral consideration/whatever we want to assign to plants, the fewer animals we should eat!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
crazyvanman posted:I don't want to derail the thread too much, and I don't want to go too 'woo', but I actually think I do need to morally consider plants and that it is possible to have a meaningful relationship with them. That might be a bit to out there for this thread, but at least consider it this way: if I'm out for a run and I notice too late that I'm about to step on either a stone with one foot or a plant with another, I'd obviously choose the stone (granted, the stone is unlikely to be damaged anyway, but hopefully the point still carries!). While this is probably true, couldn't it just be the fact that having plants growing is a pleasant thing and you'd like to avoid damaging pleasant things if possible? If given a choice between damaging a dandelion, and damaging a neighbor's ornamental rock garden I'd definitely damage the plant in that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:While this is probably true, couldn't it just be the fact that having plants growing is a pleasant thing and you'd like to avoid damaging pleasant things if possible? If given a choice between damaging a dandelion, and damaging a neighbor's ornamental rock garden I'd definitely damage the plant in that scenario. Yeah of course, this could be part of the motivation, and perhaps it's wishful thinking but it's not the primary one for me. For example, I find daffodils pretty unattractive and uninteresting, but I'd happily wreck a much more attractive rock garden, piece of artwork etc., than the daffodil, because I afford the latter a higher moral value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
crazyvanman posted:Yeah of course, this could be part of the motivation, and perhaps it's wishful thinking but it's not the primary one for me. For example, I find daffodils pretty unattractive and uninteresting, but I'd happily wreck a much more attractive rock garden, piece of artwork etc., than the daffodil, because I afford the latter a higher moral value. You would preserve a daffodil over a unique valuable painting or sculpture? Let's make it dramatic since self driving cars are in the news a lot and this is a real question engineers need to grapple with. You are careening towards a group of pedestrians and you have two choices: Swerve left and crash into the statue of David, swerve to the right and crush a daffodil. Knowing you and the car would be ok regardless of what happens, you would swerve left?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
There's a lovely argument developed by Leo Tolstoy in his essay The First Step, which makes a self-centered argument for abstention from meat which does not rely on elevating the rights of animals to be like those of humans. In brief and imperfect summary, the idea is that to consume meat, and especially to participate in the act of processing animals, is to erode your own conscience in a way that harms you in all other aspects of your life. I would recommend reading the essay, and the other nonfiction (even some fiction) from Tolstoy, if you have any interest in how animal rights intersects with pacifism, Christianity, or the development of a strong sense of conscience that Tolstoy advocates as part of his religious practice. It was a milestone on my coming to feel like the Christian ethic was in accord with my own conscience. Here's one source for it: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Lyof_N._Tolsto%C3%AF/The_First_Step To bring this to bear on the topic at hand, my conscience tells me not to tread on a daffodil, because someone else might want to see it, and because that daffodil might one day bring forth new daffodils. I wouldn't want to tread on a pretty rock either, if there's a reasonable alternative - and I especially wouldn't want to take a pretty rock out of its natural environment by the side of a trail. These are subject to other, higher priorities, but I think it's just fine to consult your conscience for things like this. I also don't particularly advocate for laws to be made based on my conscience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:...which does not rely on elevating the rights of animals to be like those of humans. Small point of clarification. Very few vegans are arguing for the same level of rights. Only the level of rights required to allow animals to be free of exploitation and intentional harm by humans. The good analogy I heard once is "Three dollars and five dollars aren't the same value, but they'll still buy you a can of coke.".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Small point of clarification. Very few vegans are arguing for the same level of rights. Only the level of rights required to allow animals to be free of exploitation and intentional harm by humans. I picked the phrase 'to be like' purposely: I am not depicting the vegan position is one of the same rights, but one of meaningfully similar rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
DrBox posted:You would preserve a daffodil over a unique valuable painting or sculpture? OK so the artwork was maybe a bad example from me - I was suggesting more that if it was, say, a nice painting of a daffodil, I would choose to destroy the painting of a daffodil, which implies that there is some moral value to plants. I think it gets messier when talking about more culturally loaded works of art, because then there might be something more to it. Re: Tolstoy, I'm a big fan of his writing, and it's interesting but frustrating to see how his idea of 'bearing witness' has been utilised by sections of the animal rights movement (Save in particular) to motivate their actions. The frustrating part comes because Tolstoy was very specifically saying that in bearing witness to the most horrific acts we should be spurred into action to stop them, whereas I feel that Save is stuck just in some kind of 'bear witness loop'. Anyway, possibly another derail into the route of what vegans can do beyond abstention from animal products, so feel free to discount it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
crazyvanman posted:Re: Tolstoy, I'm a big fan of his writing, and it's interesting but frustrating to see how his idea of 'bearing witness' has been utilised by sections of the animal rights movement (Save in particular) to motivate their actions. The frustrating part comes because Tolstoy was very specifically saying that in bearing witness to the most horrific acts we should be spurred into action to stop them, whereas I feel that Save is stuck just in some kind of 'bear witness loop'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Internet communists are some of the worst people imaginable https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1599154998474002432 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Internet communists are some of the worst people imaginable I love that they are blocking all the people pointing out how wrong they are. I'm glad that there are apparently enough white vegans to consume all those avocados. That must mean Veganism had gone really mainstream!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Also pretty funny that he's complaining about strawmanning in the comments after opening with "white vegans eating avocado at every meal"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Do we assume the field mice of the avocado farms are being treated ethically? If relative ethics are important I'm not sure why we are focusing on this guy at all anyway but generally he's talking about the environment not ethics and I'm not sure where you're getting that he is a bad person or what scale you're using
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also pretty funny that he's complaining about strawmanning in the comments after opening with "white vegans eating avocado at every meal" He's talking about people he sees on Twitter. Idon't see how you could deny that white vegans on Twitter are annoying about avocado but generally we use citations to prove this sort of thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:He's talking about people he sees on Twitter. Idon't see how you could deny that white vegans on Twitter are annoying about avocado but generally we use citations to prove this sort of thing Yes I already pointed out he opened with a strawman
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
It's not a straw man I'm confused. Maybe we are talking about different people I thought you were saying Lee Carter was strawmanning. Disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's not a straw man I'm confused. Ok well he is and I don't see how you can disagree with it unless you have some kind of proof that everyone he's arguing against eats avocado for every meal but it's a free country I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
I think that's what we call a joke or exaggeration but since it's not a post made in the thread by a poster there's really no way to tell
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think that's what we call a joke or exaggeration but since it's not a post made in the thread by a poster there's really no way to tell My man that's what a strawman is, an exaggeration that's easier to attack. Which like whatever it's fine, it's just funny that he immediately starts bitching about strawmanning after he does it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Like I don't think he thinks he's refuting an argument that it's okay to eat avocados every meal. That would be a strawman. The joke mocking vegans is not the argument he thinks the vegans are making He simply saying that shipping fruit across the country is bad for the environment in a way that killing a cow in his backyard is not. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Yes of course he doesn't really believe vegans are arguing we should fly in avocado for every meal that's why it's a strawman. If he genuinely believed it, he would just be wrong. I don't know what to tell you dude, it's funny when someone tries to dunk on people with a meme and then immediately goes into hall monitor mode about Formal Debate Club Rules. "Sir! SIR! You responded to my imgflip jpg with a flagrant violation of modens ponens how dare you sir!" Lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:He simply saying that shipping fruit across the country is bad for the environment in a way that killing a cow in his backyard is not. He might not be correct. It would depend on how he is feeding the cow if he has adequate pasture or is having to buy grain (which would have been shipped).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He might not be correct. It would depend on how he is feeding the cow if he has adequate pasture or is having to buy grain (which would have been shipped). And even he were, I'm not sure how that's an argument against veganism. It's more environmentally friendly than eating plants from Mexico? And therefore better? Ok well growing vegetables on that same land would do even less harm to the environment than growing livestock feed on it soooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
I don't think he's trying to argue against veganism so of course it isn't a good argument against veganism. I don't know if the "regenerative ranching" does is harmful to the environment or not (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think he's trying to argue against veganism so of course it isn't a good argument against veganism. Idk about that he posted a meme blaming deforestation on vegans, pretty confusing then imo E: I think we're talking past each other because you're focusing only on his fairly benign statement and ignoring the stupid inaccurate meme as a meaningless joke, but my original observation was about how absurd it is for him to complain about other people's debate etiquette after trying to dunk on them with memes. And frankly, the obvious intent of including the meme is to mock people, so it's also pretty silly of him to act surprised when those people draw inferences about his argument based on it or argue with it etc. If one is trying to make a serious point with a carefully limited scope, pairing it with some dumb  meme that's making wildly stupid claim isn't the best choice!
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
This recent discussion I think demonstrates how important it is to have a consistent figure of merit when talking about the left-wing politics of food. When the figure of merit constantly changes (e.g. in the left-wing politics of food, depending on the subject, food wildly oscillates between being too expensive or too cheap, too readily available or not available enough, food waste is a terrible tragedy or a pretty fundamental consequence of demonizing processed/prepared foods and wanting to make fresh foods readily available everywhere 24/7 in the US) it's confusing to outsiders. It also permits infighting among insiders because there isn't really a solid principle upon which to build the ideology upon, and so there become major differences of opinion. Like in the above tweet. 'Better for the environment' gets used in a pretty slippery way much of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
A good documentary just came out recently. Punk Rock Vegan Movie. It goes over the history of the punk and hardcore scene and the animal rights movement within it. If anyone thinks a plant based diet is too hard or not viable long term there are lot of anecdotes here to look at. If a poor punk rock band touring around in the 80s can make it work, most people today can too. It's a fun watch for anyone who grew up between the 80s and the 00s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Rise from the dead Vegan thread! Interesting interactions in the Diablo thread. People have no problem talking about human causes like poor working conditions at Blizzard or lovely things management are doing, but as soon as you say that a promotion with KFC is bad and birds suffer and die for lovely nuggies then you're the enemy. Watching the mental gymnastics or outright hostility from these manchildren that would otherwise consider themselves decent progressive people never stops being disappointing. Go vegan. It's literally changing a few things at the grocery store or ordering something else on the menu you fucks. It's not hard to avoid paying this abuse.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Rise from the dead Vegan thread! There seems to be a particular alignment of factors that makes dorky, otherwise progressive Gen X-Millennial individuals, especially men, become irrationally angry when challenged about eating meat. The posting on these forums used to be exhibit A of this kind of behavior, though it’s diminished somewhat over the years and receded to some corners. I think it stems from the fact that many of these people view eating meat, or animal products more broadly, as a simple everyday pleasure that’s available to them even if other stuff aspects of their lives are lovely, and thus any effort to take that away from them is entirely unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2023 12:21
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:There seems to be a particular alignment of factors that makes dorky, otherwise progressive Gen X-Millennial individuals, especially men, become irrationally angry when challenged about eating meat. The posting on these forums used to be exhibit A of this kind of behavior, though it’s diminished somewhat over the years and receded to some corners. Yeah I agree with a lot of that. There's also the heavy cultural conditioning through media and especially advertisements towards the idea that eating meat is "manly". A lot of insecure men have to reflexively assert their masculinity and bashing veganism or defending eating meat is a way to do that. It's similar to people who will go to the extreme to assert they are not gay.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
South Korea attempting to ban dog meat again and the internet is flooded with hypocrites condemning the practice while having no issue buying tortured cows pigs and chickens from the supermarket. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-ban-eating-dogs-2023-11-17/
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
since the thread has revived and i just noticed it, i would like to ask for opinions s on something ive pondered for a minute. ive mostly given up buying meat because of environmental reasons (animal ethics and rights are not a huge concern of mine). however, i help at a foodbank at least once a week and bring home meat from it. it amounts for most the meat in my diet. is it unethical to take meat that is at the rear end end of the supply chain, essentially spoilage headed to the trash, and consume it? ive given no money for it (though the donating stores get tax credits i assume), it will literally go to waste, and im poor and its free i also take plenty of bread, fruit and vegetables from the food bank as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 08:09
|
|
|
You might be interested in this discussion of the topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 08:35
|
|
|
read the abstract, will read the 22 other pages soon, thank you
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:since the thread has revived and i just noticed it, i would like to ask for opinions s on something ive pondered for a minute. ive mostly given up buying meat because of environmental reasons (animal ethics and rights are not a huge concern of mine). however, i help at a foodbank at least once a week and bring home meat from it. it amounts for most the meat in my diet. Sounds like you are freegan, which has different ethical standards. I can't speak for anyone else, but the question I would ask myself in your position is how does it make me feel. Then make my decision based off of that. For me it's a hard no, maybe for you it's okay, food waste is a massive issue. I can't show hard figures, but in as much as I recall demand will decrease if it is discarded. When it is consumed it can be used as a tax write off or for other purposes. Regardless, congrats on reducing your meat intake, doing what you believe to be ethical is generally good for your mental health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
World Famous W posted:since the thread has revived and i just noticed it, i would like to ask for opinions s on something ive pondered for a minute. ive mostly given up buying meat because of environmental reasons (animal ethics and rights are not a huge concern of mine). however, i help at a foodbank at least once a week and bring home meat from it. it amounts for most the meat in my diet. Here are two problems that would confront me if I were in this situation. First, as I mentioned upthread, the act of abstention from meat can be beneficial on a spiritual level. You should consider whether the act of consuming ethically-sourced meat presents a problem for your conscience. The effect of your actions on yourself matters, ethically. Second, a theoretical food bank volunteer might take home meat from the food bank, leave an emptier meat shelf, and induce another user of the food bank to access the ordinary market for meat. Of course, this is a practical consideration, and an ethics-minded volunteer might only take meat that is seconds from the literal garbage. I abstain from meat, and I would most likely continue to abstain from meat in your shoes. But I don't see a big ethical problem with your actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 09:01
|
|