are vegans commie pinko meeps?

Hey Loki, does your strict definition of veganism work HERE?

In order for the doctors to use that word I guess they must have also recorded the subjects' beliefs and voting record regarding animal products, eh?

Bump meep off spammeep

dinozoa: Loki: You attacked pchimp without attacking his arguments.

dinoza: This is par for the course with you, and is the number one fallacy in your debating style.

dinoza: Regarding the statements I made that you dismissed as so many straw-men: I didn't know this discussion was only about responding to your ill-thought assertions.

Well done fuktard.

Pchimp: I think it's less that I'm falling behind and more that you're leaping ahead with unwarranted extrapolations.

I know that's what you think, I just don't know why--I'm sure you don't either.

swarmer: Of course I understand the distinction. It is precisely because I understand it that I don't agree with what you've been blathering on about.

I don't think you are at all clear on the distinction, and you don't understand it at all.

The fundemental premis upon which veganism is based is not the same as simple vegetarianism, as you apppear to insist upon by implication. There is an underlying point to the extremeism that you and freakbass (but not dinoza) insist upon turning a blind eye to.

Pchimp: how does the decision of a group to respect animal rights (which you justifiably deny exist) infringe on your rights?

Animals can't have rights. Granting animals rights changes the concept of rights fundementally, such that they become privileges doled out by the powerful rather than the prerequisites intrinsic to our being.

Pchimp: Yes, you say that they might "manage to vote little bits of their political aggenda into laws" and "convert people to [their] beliefs and lifestyle with the sword", but can't you use this argument against any group that advocates something that you don't personally agree with?

No. At least not he way you're implying. Mechanically yes, but that assertion (something that you [merely] don't personally agree with) formed upon the mechanics of a rights argument is going to fail under scrutiny unless the presonal disagreement with the issue is actually right's based.

Pchimp: You have repeatedly asserted that vegans are out to push their values on others with authoritarian tactics because the recognition of animal rights demands it, and that this drive to coercion is implicit in veganism; but I see no evidence of this.

Well, if you accept that the foundational premise of veganism is that animals have rights, then I cannot see how you can avoid the conclusion that the result is infringment of righs--which is necessarily accomplished by force.

Pchimp: If it were not abundantly clear, this is the claim that I challenged above and which you casually brush aside.

It was abundantly clear that you hold the opinion that there is no fundemental distinction to be made between vegetarianism and veganism. I did not brush that aside, I just brushed by you.

Pchimp: Your arguments on this thread can't help but remind me of the meep marriage debate, wherein the religious right similarly claims that respecting meep's right to marry infringes on the sanctity of heteromeepual marriages in some way via a hand-waving argument.

Marriage isn't a right. The issues are entirely different, so I'm not at all surprised you're confused.

Pchimp: Presumedly your emphasis in the definition you've pulled is meant to imply that since vegans are opposed to animal exploitation, that this necessarily implies that they will necessarily act to coerce others to give animals the same "respect." I don't buy that interpretation at all. As I've stipulated, there are plenty of vegans and veggies who do wish to do so; but it's not implicit in the philosophy.

It is explicit in the philosophy, which is why your "buying" it or not is irrellevent.

Pchimp: Your definition describes a way of living wherein someone votes with their pocketbook, eschewing as many products that they think are immorally produced as they can. Nothing wrong with that -- the marketplace at work.

If this was just market choices, and that was as far as it goes, then I'd have no problem with it, but as you've already pointed out you (and they) have no problem with them using the government to help them achieve their goal of establishing rights for animals, and I'm recogognizing that their goal cannot be achieved without the help of government force.

Pchimp: Advocates of any lifestyle choice can become militant and try to push their beliefs politically. I don't see why you single out veganism like this.

Why vegans? CHECK THE THREAD TOPIC, meep!

Pchimp: I understand where you're going getting on the rights train to emancipation junction, but I don't agree that it 1) applies to all vegans and 2) implies the necessity of coersion.

Then you need to get a firm grip on what veganism is about, and what rights are. Then think about the mechanics of establishing, advocation of, and protection of thes "rights" that animal will then "enjoy."

Think of it, your political status becomes dependent on your diet.

And Pchimp, start at the top of the thread. Reread. Understand.

freakbass: Hey Loki, does your strict definition of veganism work HERE?

Yes.

freakbass:In order for the doctors to use that word I guess they must have also recorded the subjects' beliefs and voting record regarding animal products, eh?

No, but they do have to take into consideration the meaning of every word they use--including vegan--and for the purposes of the paper you link to, it appears they have.

Try harder.

freakbass: Hey Loki, does your strict definition of veganism work HERE?

Holy cow, it's like typing out that science link magically ensconced you in a little white lab coat.

The fundemental premis upon which veganism is based is not the same as simple vegetarianism, as you apppear to insist upon by implication. There is an underlying point to the extremeism that you and freakbass (but not dinoza) insist upon turning a blind eye to.

This is the fundamental premise of one flavor of veganism. I don't debate that. Your insistence that it describes all veganism is what I take issue with. There are justifications for veganism based exclusively on health, environmental, or compassionate concerns. Nearly all of the arguments in support of these concerns are wrong, but most of them are not predicated on any notion of animal rights. I'd also point out that many simple vegetarians share the same premise, but are not as "committed." You're drawing a false distinction. Or, rather, generalizing a distinction onto groups where it doesn't necessarily apply.

Animals can't have rights. Granting animals rights changes the concept of rights fundementally, such that they become privileges doled out by the powerful rather than the prerequisites intrinsic to our being.

I would say that we have doled out rights to ourselves. Justifiably. Also, PETA and others would argue that animals' so-called rights are also intrinsic. Other than that, I don't disagree with this, except to point out that I believe there is already a difference in conception of rights, and that many on the veggie/vegan side (and most people everywhere, really, in all sorts of issues) already muddle what "rights" really entail. Though their use of the term may be inappropriate and you can argue against the meaning of rights, addressing their arguments requires tackling what they understand their argument to be. You can't simply imprint your definition over theirs and attack the implications after your substitution.

that assertion (something that you [merely] don't personally agree with) formed upon the mechanics of a rights argument is going to fail under scrutiny unless the presonal disagreement with the issue is actually right's based.

Gotcha.

Well, if you accept that the foundational premise of veganism is that animals have rights

I do not. Though the point stands that even those vegans who do share this premise do not necessarily advocate any coersion of others. The

Marriage isn't a right. The issues are entirely different, so I'm not at all surprised you're confused.

It is considered a right by advocates, which is the salient point.
You are taking the position that other people's recognition of animal rights infringes on your own rights (through a redefinition of what it means to have rights). The religious right takes the position that recognition of meep marriage infringes on the institution of marriage (through a redefinition of what it means to be married). In both cases, the behaviour that is being argued against is a personal one which does not directly affect those who appear to be threatened by it.

but as you've already pointed out you (and they) have no problem with them using the government to help them achieve their goal of establishing rights for animals

I've never said any such thing.

freakbass: Hey Loki, does your strict definition of veganism work HERE?

Yes.

Idiot. It most certainly does not. Clinicians use a functional definition based entirely on diet. Though it is irrelevant to debate about the basis for choosing that diet.

Dinoza How does Yeast fit in your Vegan diet? I know you are a brewer and consume millions & millions of live yeast cultures.

I personally don't have anything wrong with Veganism although I traveled to Asia with a Vegan & it was one of the biggest pain in the meep experiences I've ever had to endure. I vowed never to travel internationally with anyone else with an overly limited diet. The daily search for vegan friendly food took far too much time and energy away from actually enjoying our time there and I felt I really missed out on a lot cultural dining because of it.

Yeast is no more an animal than plants or fungi are. Yeasts are protozoas or protists (or whatever you want to call them), the most basic form of non-bacteria life.

Also, I try not to go out to dinner with people or do anything involving food with other people, except other vegans, who I eat dinner with all the time. I don't know if I'm a bad travel companion, but I imagine some people would think so.

Also, I wanted to point out Loki, you haven't explained how giving animals rights infringes on the rights of humans. I can only see one way the rights of humans can be infringed, in the sense that if we give animals the exact same rights as humans, we can no longer eat whatever we want, but eat tofu and plants and stuff instead.

Earlier, I pointed out that I don't consider it a right to be able to eat whatever you want. I don't necessarily advocate not being able to eat any meats or whatever, but I think the idea of the ocean being empty of fish in 50 yrs due to commercial fishing is a good reason not to eat most fish. I also think it's appropriate to protect these species from extinction by suitable legislation. You can disagree if you want, but being able to eat swordfish and wild salmon is not considered a right by anybody I know (so you'd be the first). Most people don't even offer that as an argument against commercial fishing, they offer arguments like "what about the people whose job it is to catch the fish?"

Nobody has ever had a right to a job in a capitalist society.

Pchimp: This is the fundamental premise of one flavor of veganism. I don't debate that. Your insistence that it describes all veganism is what I take issue with. There are justifications for veganism based exclusively on health, environmental, or compassionate concerns. Nearly all of the arguments in support of these concerns are wrong, but most of them are not predicated on any notion of animal rights. I'd also point out that many simple vegetarians share the same premise, but are not as "committed." You're drawing a false distinction. Or, rather, generalizing a distinction onto groups where it doesn't necessarily apply.

Incorrect. I might choose to embrace a diet that eliminates simple sugars and carbohydrates in favor of complex carbohydrates, animal protein and reasonable amounts of fat without being a diabetic--what make the distinction is the REASON for choosing the diet. Vegetarians have a boatload of reasons for being vegetarian, but you go vegan for a REASON, and that reason is wholly moral and political.

Pchimp: I would say that we have doled out rights to ourselves. Justifiably.

Your phrasology implies a serious misunderstanding of rights, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree, provided "justifiably" gets read as "neccessarily."

Pchimp: Also, PETA and others would argue that animals' so-called rights are also intrinsic.

Yeah, well, these PETA members are cluelss.

Pchimp: I believe there is already a difference in conception of rights, and that many on the veggie/vegan side (and most people everywhere, really, in all sorts of issues) already muddle what "rights" really entail.

Huh. "...muddle what "rights" really entail", eh? To what end do you suppose?

Pchimp: Though their use of the term may be inappropriate and you can argue against the meaning of rights, addressing their arguments requires tackling what they understand their argument to be.

No it doesn't. Not the least bit.

Pchimp: You can't simply imprint your definition over theirs and attack the implications after your substitution.

Oh yes the fuk I can. They can say rights is icecream and I can completely shove it up their meep. THEY cannot legitimately redefine rights and imprint their bullmeep by substitution.

Pchimp:

LOki: Well, if you accept that the foundational premise of veganism is that animals have rights

I do not. Though the point stands that even those vegans who do share this premise do not necessarily advocate any coersion of others.

I'm afraid that if you take the time to browse their literature some, you don't have a choice in the fuking matter. Once you make your "simple lifesyle choice" political, you're attempting to make it a part of everyone else's "simple lifestyle choice" by force.

Pchimp:

LOki: Marriage isn't a right. The issues are entirely different, so I'm not at all surprised you're confused.

It is considered a right by advocates, which is the salient point.

The issues are entirely different, and they are confused, which is my point.

Pchimp: You are taking the position that other people's recognition of animal rights infringes on your own rights (through a redefinition of what it means to have rights).

Yes, rights are neccessary for human beings to exist as human beings (rather than say, animals). Establishing that animals have rights diminishes humans, rather than elevating animals--which is patently clear.

Pchimp: The religious right takes the position that recognition of meep marriage infringes on the institution of marriage (through a redefinition of what it means to be married).

Infringes upon an institution--an institution, mind you, that is not the exclusive perview of religion--but not rights.

Pchimp:

LOki: but as you've already pointed out you (and they) have no problem with them using the government to help them achieve their goal of establishing rights for animals

I've never said any such thing.

HAHAHA! You're right!

Pchimp:

LOki:

freakbass: Hey Loki, does your strict definition of veganism work HERE?

Yes.

Idiot. It most certainly does not. Clinicians use a functional definition based entirely on diet. Though it is irrelevant to debate about the basis for choosing that diet.

Idiot? I suppose if I subscribe to the axiom, I should be flattered, but I'd like to point out that despite the appurtenant politics of veganism being irrellevent to the clinical study, the study of vegan diet (with the appurtenant politics intact for each subject) and using the term vegan to describe the subjects (with the appurtenant politics intact for each subject) is valid. It is entirely valid to presume, that for those conducting the study, they actually and precisely meant "vegan" (with the appurtenant politics intact) rather than "strict vegetarian." It's best to understand your own argument before calling someone else an idiot.

dinoza: Also, I wanted to point out Loki, you haven't explained how giving animals rights infringes on the rights of humans.

But I have, and now I have twice.

dinoza: I can only see one way the rights of humans can be infringed, in the sense that if we give animals the exact same rights as humans, we can no longer eat whatever we want, but eat tofu and plants and stuff instead.

Since eating whatever you want is not a right anyway, I'm not surpised that you are so confused that you see "only one way" the rights of humans can be infringed upon.

dinoza: Earlier, I pointed out that I don't consider it a right to be able to eat whatever you want.

Yeah, but you just said it was a right--you can't confuse me this way.

dinoza: I think the idea of the ocean being empty of fish in 50 yrs due to commercial fishing is a good reason not to eat most fish.

Why are farmed fish off the diet then?

dinoza: I also think it's appropriate to protect these species from extinction by suitable legislation.

Why is it appropriate to protect a species destined for extinction from its destiny?

dinoza: You can disagree if you want, but being able to eat swordfish and wild salmon is not considered a right by anybody I know (so you'd be the first).

Eating someone-else's swordfish and wild salmon is not a right, but eating my own is.

dinoza: Nobody has ever had a right to a job in a capitalist society.

That is absolutely right; yet beside the point, unless you are attempting to steer the question back to "are vegans commies?" Since anecdotal evidence is the favored argumentative flavor of my opponents, I'll just submit that I have yet to meet a vegan who did not subscribe to socialist or communist ideology. I don't think it's mere coincidence.

LOki: All vegans are vegetarians by logical neccessity, but not all vegetarians (which most probably includes your friend and his fuking special diet) are vegan.

Matt Ball: "Being vegan, for me, is about lessening suffering and working for animal liberation as efficiently as possible. It has nothing to do with personal purity or my ego. If, by some bizarre twist, eating a burger (or, better yet, a triple-cheese Uno's pizza :-) ) were to advance animal liberation significantly, then I would do it."

Apparently it's not neccessary to be vegetarian to be vegan.

I stand corrected.

I think most vegans claim it is necessary to not eat any animal products, because there is no magical triple cheese pizza that will save all the kiddie cows from being slaughtered.

But some vegans are more practical than others. Several vegans I know are freegans, where they will eat any animal product that they can find in dumpsters (usually stuff like cakes and bagels, never anything where if it's in a dumpster it might be poison.)

dinozoa: But some vegans are more practical than others. Several vegans I know are freegans, where they will eat any animal product that they can find in dumpsters (usually stuff like cakes and bagels, never anything where if it's in a dumpster it might be poison.)

HAHAHA! The very definition of "desperate for a cheeseburger."

"As long as somebody else has already paid for the "exploitation," I'll eat it!--it'd be a crime to let that suffering go to waste."

I've never seen a freegan eat meat, usually becasue it's not safe to eat meat somebody else has discarded. However, I don't think it's surprising that many vegetarians or vegans like the taste of meat and desire to eat it.

However, I don't think the freegan philosophy is on shakey ethical grounds. They are not contributing to cruelty to or exploitation of animals. You may find the philosophy humorous, but that doesn't make it wrong.

dinozoa: I've never seen a freegan eat meat, usually becasue it's not safe to eat meat somebody else has discarded. However, I don't think it's surprising that many vegetarians or vegans like the taste of meat and desire to eat it. However, I don't think the freegan philosophy is on shakey ethical grounds. They are not contributing to cruelty to or exploitation of animals. You may find the philosophy humorous, but that doesn't make it wrong.

They're eating out of the meeping trash. They are all kinds of wrong.

That's goofy. What are these dipmeep gypsy scabs protesting, commerce? They're profiting by the fruits of it anyway. Sounds like a conflation of 'principled' and 'thrifty'.

dumpster diving is not protest. why are they dipmeep gypsy scabs, or goofy, or wrong? Isn't possible to be principled and thrifty?

I'm not a freegan, but I've eaten plenty of dumpstered food.

eating out of the trash is for idiots and bobo

dinozoa: dumpster diving is not protest. why are they dipmeep gypsy scabs, or goofy, or wrong? Isn't possible to be principled and thrifty? I'm not a freegan, but I've eaten plenty of dumpstered food.

meep it, what the meep is wrong with people.

Vegans: "Understanding human nature and recognizing the primacy of suffering has led Vegan Outreach to formulate two guiding principles for advocacy: We should, as much as possible, strive to identify and set aside our personal biases and needs. Vegan Outreach's approach to advocacy tries to orient itself through a straightforward analysis of the world as it is, motivated solely by the suffering of others. When we choose to do one thing, we are choosing not to do others. The people who want to create a better world, including those who make up Vegan Outreach, have extremely limited resources and time. So instead of choosing to 'do something, do anything,- we pursue actions that we believe will lead to the greatest reduction in suffering. Once again, this may sound simplistic, but given the endless demands on advocates, we believe it is an important principle to follow. Based on these two principles, we choose to focus on exposing the cruelties of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses, while providing honest information about how to pursue a cruelty-free lifestyle. Let me repeat - our emphasis on ethical eating is derived from our principles of advocacy, not vice versa. No specific diet - conscientious carnivorism, veganism, etc. - has any value in and of itself. Rather, the importance of promoting cruelty-free eating is that it allows us to have the maximum impact on the amount of suffering in the world."

Matt Ball: "Spreading information about how veganism prevents animal suffering helps to move individuals (and thus society) away from relying on animal exploitation for a fundamental, daily activity-eating. Once individuals have broken their attachment to a daily reliance on animal exploitation, it is much easier for them to reject all animal exploitation, rather than just the high-profile abuses committed by others. As more people understand and act by the tenets of veganism, it will be significantly easier for others to join them. This will bring pressure to bear on other animal issues, and achievement of our goals will be accelerated."

Matt Ball: "We want a vegan world, not a vegan club."

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.: "Veganism recognizes no expendable or superfluous species that humans are free to hurt or destroy. Species of life-forms need not justify their existence, nor plead for protection from extinction on the grounds of their potential usefulness as food or medicine for humans. We continue to be burdened and misguided by adages such as "A weed is a plant we have not yet found a use for.""

Irony.

Vegans: "Veganism is an advanced way of living in accordance with Reverence for Life, recognizing the rights of all living creatures, and extending to them the compassion, kindness, and justice exemplified in the Golden Rule."

This "Reverence for Life", and recognition of "the rights of all living creatures" is extendend compassionately, kindly and justly as "exemplified in the Golden Rule" to plants, fungi, and microbes? If not, why not?

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.: "Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" than those with "highly developed nervous systems." The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cow, a chicken, or a child."

But not plants, eh? Oh, I see the reference to "sentient," but I'd argue the sentience of bees and earthworms, and I'd also argue your premises for claiming plants are not sentient. (Probably by using the exact arguments you'll use to establish that bees and earthworms ARE sentient enough to enjoy your "...intrinsic legitimacy of all life.")

Vegans: "To be truly healthful, a diet must be best not just for individuals in isolation but must allow all six billion people to thrive and achieve a sustainable coexistence with the many other species that form the "living earth". From this standpoint the natural adaptation for most (possibly all) humans in the modern world is a vegan diet. There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. In choosing to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12 from the same source as every other animal on the planet - micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or causing environmental damage."

If the test of sentience is the capacity to make others attempt sense of such painfully sensless assertions, then I am about to agree that vegans have a point about unneccessary suffering--the news to them is they are causing it, and I'm considering the value of euthanizing them for their own good, and ours.

Vegans: "If people had to kill the animals themselves, there would be a lot more vegetarians."

The obvious contradiction to this argument is the vast, vast period of time where people killed the animals they ate all by themselves wich DID NOT lead to vegetarianism--in fact, it is only lately, whereupon people have become alienated from the sources of their meals (both animal and vegetable) that they take for granted what their meals mean, what they are worth, and what they cost. If people had to harvest their meals (both animal and vegetable) themselves, they'd be more appreciative of the sources of those meals, and have far less time to fabricate fatuous notions about the cruelty of eating meat and wearing leather shoes.

vegans: "All animal products are linked to suffering. If you want to live your life in this world contributing as little as possible to the suffering, staying away from animal products is the only way."

Life is linked to suffering. If you want to live your life in this world contributing as little as possible to the suffering, go kill yourself. It'd be--how was it worded?--"...ending [yours and everyone else's] suffering as efficiently and quickly as possible."

Ingrid Newkirk: "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."[Vogue, September 1989]

But animal liberationists do separate out plants, fungi and bacteria from animals--on what intellectually and morally consitent grounds?

Vegans: "Regarding ethics, a vegan diet eliminates a tremendous amount of killing. The average U.S. resident eats more than 40 chickens a year, as well as a substantial amount of beef and pork. Thus, every one person switching to a vegan diet keeps dozens of animals out of the slaughterhouse each year."

Yet how many plants are killed? Does a vegan diet also eliminate the killing of plants? Does keeping dozens of animals out of the slaughterhouse eliminate the killing of plants? What, prescisely, is so ethical about killing plants?

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.: "Vegans see life as a phenomenon to be treasured, revered and respected. We do not see animals as either "The Enemy" to be subdued, or the Materials for Food, Fabric or Fun that were put on Earth for human use."

But plants are not so revered? Plants ARE "The Enemy", and ARE ..."the Materials for Food, Fabric or Fun that were put on Earth for human use"? Just not animals. A guy with a Ph.D. should be brighter.

Matt Ball: "Over 99% of the animals killed in the U.S. each year die to be eaten. Everyone makes choices directly determining the fates of these animals when deciding what to eat each day."

What percentage of plants killed in the U.S. each year die to be eaten? What flavor of speciesism must you possess to to make that statistic morally palatable for yourself?

What flavor of intellectual dishonesty must you possess to assert that eating animals is speciesism, but eating plants is not?

Ingrid Newkirk: "I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything."[ashington Post, November 13, 1983, p. B10]

...except plants, lots, and lots of plants. Whole families of plants. The mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of plants; and all their plant neighbors are excluded from my "reverence for life."

Vegans: "It is all very well to say that individuals must wrestle with their consciences--but only if their consciences are awake and informed. Industrial society, alas, hides animals' suffering. For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows about what's happening before the meat hits the plate, the better."

Matt Ball: "In the U.S., given the quantity of non-human animals suffering, the extent to which they are suffering, and the reason they are intentionally made to suffer, I believe that animal liberation is the moral imperative of our time. Our entire focus should be on ending the suffering as efficiently and quickly as possible."

Allow me to rejoinder: In the U.S., given the quantity of human beings suffering, the extent to which they are suffering, and the reason they are intentionally made to suffer, I believe that human liberation is the moral imperative of our time. Our entire focus should be on ending the suffering as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Those are just my priorities though.

Wha??

ghostrider: Wha??

haha, bullmeep propaganda

Dude, it's Yahoo

It hasta be true.

IQ is a meaningless concept

I liked the article and will add it to my arsenal even if it's false..

;)

are you also going to save articles that say white people have higher iqs than black people because you're white?

freakbass: I liked the article and will add it to my arsenal even if it's false.. ;)

such things don't matter, dinozoa.

I will send it to people just to meep them off, which is my MO here much of the time.

:)

freakbass: ...just to meep them off, which is my MO here much of the time.

You're just saying that because nobody here likes you.

pot calling the kettle black

freakbass: I will send it to people just to meep them off, which is my MO here much of the time.

Ah, the time-honored last-ditch attempt of the loser to scrabble up some dignity by pretending to embrace the failure of his dialog.

:SEALCLAP:

I will send it to people just to meep them off, which is my MO here much of the time.

how wotakian.

I found this in the very early linkswarm archives:

Veganism is Silly

greenrd: I won't speculate too much about the motives of those who make arguments like "But what about plants?" Suffice it to say that trolling and joking are not the only things that can drive people to champion apparently absurd positions.

LOLsome.

I feel like we hashed out all the things he was talking about in that article. It was still pretty cool and well written.

I feel like we hashed out all the things he was talking about in that article. It was still pretty cool and well written.

His argument as to why no one really believes that plants suffer is that there is no "Plant Liberation Front." What kind of retarded half assed argument is that?

Besides, veganism is the concern of rich people with their heads up their meep. The only people that can deny themselves edible food are people who obviously have too much of it, and to argue against the suffering of salmon while people mere blocks away from you starve to death on the street is incomprehensible.

jesus nocal, you're the one who's sounding like he's making a retarded half-assed argument. What does the starvation of other people have anything to do with the vegan diet? I'm not telling starving people to be vegan. Being vegan isn't something mutually exclusive to concern for the welfare of humans.

Also, he addresses the meat of the plant argument earlier, saying it's pretty much impossible to figure out if they can suffer, so it's up to you to decide if they don't, and most people decide they don't. Is it fun for you to pick apart somebody else's joke?

I think you and nocal should meep, then we can get all this ickyness behind us.

What does the starvation of other people have anything to do with the vegan diet? I'm not telling starving people to be vegan. Being vegan isn't something mutually exclusive to concern for the welfare of humans.

The only people who are able to deny themselves food have too much of it. Vegans, anorexics and bulimics, all other people with weird food disorders. It is the pursuit of a person who is, in the grander sense of the world, morally confused. There is suffering all over the world, and whose suffering do you work to end? The suffering of animals. And in the simplest way possible: a way which causes you no harm and a slight adjustment in lifestyle. And it is mutually exclusive to concern for the welfare of humans. I mean, the whole point of being a vegan is either dietary, in which case whatever, or is a specifically moral choice, in which case it is designed to influence the suffering of animals. If a vegan were working to end the suffering of humans, they would cease to be vegan, because they would go to places where the most human suffering exists, which in all cases are places with a lack of food.

Also, he addresses the meat of the plant argument earlier, saying it's pretty much impossible to figure out if they can suffer, so it's up to you to decide if they don't, and most people decide they don't. Is it fun for you to pick apart somebody else's joke?

His argument there is ridiculous as well. It's all arbitrary. He claims prawns don't feel pain, and "probably" honeybees don't feel pain. Is it because they don't make a noise? Is it because they are not anthropomophised? I happen to think that all animals feel pain, and likely insects as well. Does that make me a better vegan? What if I think that only fish can feel pain. In veganism, that is apparently a defensible argument. So I will stop eating fish in order to feel a sense of bizarre moral superiority.

Is it fun for you to rape children?

nocal: Is it fun for you to rape children?

i think it largely depends on whether or not children actually feel pain.

Which they do NOT, FIRE ZE SLIP-N-SLIDE RAPE CANNON, schlumpf schlumpf schlumpf

nocal: The only people who are able to deny themselves food have too much of it. Vegans, anorexics and bulimics, all other people with weird food disorders. It is the pursuit of

Sing that song in India and see how far you get.

So veganism is on solid ground if it bears religious underpinnings? Surely you jest. This creates antimatter.

No, i'm saying most of them do not have too much, yet they have a high percentage of vegans.

Asceticism is its own kind of madness. Worshipping cows, ditto.

nocal: The only people who are able to deny themselves food have too much of it. Vegans, anorexics and bulimics, all other people with weird food disorders. It is the pursuit of a person who is, in the grander sense of the world, morally confused. There is suffering all over the world, and whose suffering do you work to end? The suffering of animals. And in the simplest way possible: a way which causes you no harm and a slight adjustment in lifestyle. And it is mutually exclusive to concern for the welfare of humans. I mean, the whole point of being a vegan is either dietary, in which case whatever, or is a specifically moral choice, in which case it is designed to influence the suffering of animals. If a vegan were working to end the suffering of humans, they would cease to be vegan, because they would go to places where the most human suffering exists, which in all cases are places with a lack of food.

This is basically all not true. I thought there were starving people on the streets in America. So that means there's a serious lack of food in, for example, west Oakland? I'm in trouble, if I continue to restrict my diet here I might die of malnutrition.

Also, even if you don't give a meep about other people, being vegan is no worse than eating a lot of meat, when it comes to how much food you give other people. I won't say vegan's never glut themselves to walmart denizen obesity, because I'm sure there're a few fat vegans, but it's something to consider.

meep, you have a lot of things to consider. Your argument is so poorly thought out it's a miracle you were able to type it with clear conviction. You're just so totally oblivious to other viewpoints on this issue, it's like arguing with somebody who just heard of the idea of veganism for the first time, and has a lot of basic questions.

veganism, and vegatarianism for that matter, is bad for the economy and bad for your body. It will weaken the human species into a mushy, flesh-colored pulp and leave you with no option but to touch penises with each other. meep all of you. Forever.

It seems to me that Veganism, in the spcific context of this thread, is ONLY referring to the political activism of the Vegan movement. What all of you, I, or anyone on Earth chooses to eat is irrelevant, and is nobdy's business. Nor should it be.

What fails here is the argument of "animal rights", suffering, and the "honoring of all life" in this world. In nature, there ARE no rights. All of the natural world is predicated on dominence and submission, with plants and animals precicely arrayed in a chain of predation and suffering of weaker species by those that are stronger.

So long as any animal on earth consumes the flesh of another creature, we cannot justify denying our neighbors, countrymen and fellow humans the right to do the same. Every cow that we do not eat will eventually fall to a wolf. Death is inescapable for any living thing. We can count the hundreds of thousands of animal killed in modern agriculture as a measure of how many will suffer and die. --Or, we can count the same multitude as how many saw life to begin with.

And for the most part, death in slaughterhouses is quick. That is NOT true for natural predation.

SASS has spoken.

-- the SASS Man

_{On 2007-01-29 at 22:20:01, theSASSman pooped back and forth... forever}

bullmeep, and you know it

Your argument is so poorly thought out

Like how you arbitrarily decide which animals are capable of suffering?

In a sense, a lot of ethics are arbitrary decisions. If somebody wants to make a seemingly arbitrary decision to exclude some life forms from his or her diet on the basis of perceived suffering, who are you to tell them they can't do this? This is the crux of the vegan argument, which you have yet to demonstrate you understand.

In a sense, a lot of ethics are arbitrary decisions.

None that I can think of. And if you base your ethics on arbitrary decisions, then I think you have some problems.

If somebody wants to make a seemingly arbitrary decision to exclude some life forms from his or her diet on the basis of perceived suffering, who are you to tell them they can't do this? This is the crux of the vegan argument, which you have yet to demonstrate you understand.

No it seems that you are the one who doesn't understand. You can decide that you will only eat marshmallows and dirt, but I can reasonably consider you as a person who bases their dietary decisions on arbitrary bullmeep. If you admit that the basis of veganism is arbitrary, then I think that it serves no one, and no thing, but yourself.

It doesn't serve the animals I'm not eating?

Ideology is nothing. How you live your life is everything.

dinozoa: bullmeep, and you know it

D9L