drhughgrection - 11/19/2006 at 00:27
i mean fags in homos, not in cigarettes. what red blooded american would be a frikkin vegan? homos
dinozoa - 11/19/2006 at 00:52
I'm a vegan. Thanks bud.
JohnLenin - 11/19/2006 at 01:39
^ I thought the point was to prove him wrong :<
dinozoa - 11/19/2006 at 01:58
I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.
ragoo - 11/19/2006 at 03:56
freakbass - 11/19/2006 at 04:48
dr. hughg,
you are proof that faggotry has little to do with what you eat.
wolfer - 11/19/2006 at 04:50
freakbass: dr. hughg,
you are proof that faggotry has little to do with what you eat.
unless its a dick
pla7net - 11/19/2006 at 05:03
I have an uncle who was a vegetarian once.
We went to Jack In The Box once and he ordered a burger and started chowing down. I asked him, "Are'nt you a vegetarian?" He said "Oh yeah!" and kept eating.
That was that.
government_death_robot - 11/19/2006 at 07:01
That's nice.
vasudeva - 11/19/2006 at 07:30
Then what happened?
Clavis_Apocalypticae - 11/19/2006 at 18:49
vasudeva: Then what happened?
They went home and
Duh.
Wrecker - 11/19/2006 at 18:57
dinozoa: I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.
I am completely in shock after these revelations.
LOki - 11/20/2006 at 11:33
dinozoa: I'm a vegan. Thanks bud.
:|
dinozoa: I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.
Chum is supposed to smell just a little fishy.
acheron - 11/20/2006 at 16:04
i mean fags in homos, not in cigarettes.
Making that distinction seems pretty faggy to me, fagboy. I enjoy the melding of flavors with bacon and coffee.
Uart - 11/20/2006 at 18:14
Yes.
I ate a whole fuckin' zoo on saturday, btw. DOWN WITH COMMUNISM! FIGHT THE RUSSKI'S, EAT PORK!
LOki - 11/23/2006 at 20:18
Now that I have time.
Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited.
As if.
The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast.
In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least.
freakbass - 11/23/2006 at 20:36
that's a narrow view IMO. I was vegan for years in college and it wasn't political or activist minded.. simply was the result of researching what massive amounts of animal fat can do to the body not to mention all the hormones and shit. The way they kill all the animals played a minor role but it was far from my main concern.
It was too fucking hard though. And I now believe that so long as there are shitload of veggies and fibery things in your diet you can basically eat whatever you want in moderation.
Not including stuff like massive sugar, soda, etc, of course. Badness. There is new research suggesting that Alzheimer's and other degenerative diseases might be insulin related. Some scientists’ are already calling it "Type 3 Diabetes"
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001969/53/
LOki - 11/23/2006 at 21:13
freakbass: that's a narrow view IMO. I was vegan for years in college and it wasn't political or activist minded.. simply was the result of researching what massive amounts of animal fat can do to the body not to mention all the hormones and shit. The way they kill all the animals played a minor role but it was far from my main concern.
Right. As if all that research you allegedly did revealed that honey was full of massive amounts of animal fat, and hormones.
Nice try pinko.
freakbass: It was too fucking hard though.
It is not reassuring to me that the particular level of dumb required for veganism is "too fucking hard."
I would prefer it to be lethal.
freakbass: And I now believe that so long as there are shitload of veggies and fibery things in your diet you can basically eat whatever you want in moderation.
You must of discovered this after doing actual research, and then dumping the political aggenda.
Way to go!
Hotdog?
freakbass - 11/24/2006 at 17:47
A close friend of our family has advanced cardiovascular disease and is on a very strict low fat VEGAN diet by doctors and nutritionists orders. I'm pretty sure they don’t give a shit if he wears leather Nike's or has gelatin in his chewing gum.
there is a ton of research supporting this, like the work of
Dr. Ornish
Anyway, when the anti-aging nano-bot system comes online, and your body gets passed over because of your advanced Arteriosclerosis, can I have your avatar? I'm hoping to change mine in 2090 or so..
thanx
LOki - 11/24/2006 at 23:02
freakbass: A close friend of our family has advanced cardiovascular disease and is on a very strict low fat VEGAN diet by doctors and nutritionists orders. I'm pretty sure they don’t give a shit if he wears leather Nike's or has gelatin in his chewing gum. Ok Fuktard. If your close family friend is chewing gum with animal derived gelatin, if he eats honey, drinks skim milk, eats jello, hasd a fucking bagel--if ANY ingredient of ANYTHING he stuffs into his fuking piehole is in ANY FUKING WAY derived from animal products.....HE IS NOT ON A VEGAN DIET!
Sass that, retard?
If your friend is, in fact not eating any animal products, in any form what-so-ever, but is wearing leather Nikes or holing up his pants with a leather belt, HE IS NOT A FUKING VEGAN!
Are you fuking clear on that now, asswipe?
All vegans are vegetarians by logical neccessity, but not all vegetarians (which most probably includes your friend and his fuking special diet) are vegan.
Can you follow that logic, you fuking imbecile?
freakbass: there is a ton of research supporting this, like the work of
Dr. Ornish
Way to go shit for brains!
freakbass: Anyway, when the anti-aging nano-bot system comes online, and your body gets passed over because of your advanced Arteriosclerosis, can I have your avatar? I'm hoping to change mine in 2090 or so..
thanx
You are going to discover that no vegan possesses the brain power to invent an anti-aging nano-bot system--which most assuredly will be invented by a meat eating type--and meat eating types will be the very first to benefit from such technology once we corrall all the vegan types inside a perimeter of wet toilet paper and let them die of anemia and hypertension derived from their frustration with their failure to fight themselves out of their own undewear.
dinozoa - 11/25/2006 at 02:31
Veganism is not just a set of dietary restrictions, it's a philosophy. We don't believe in cruelty to or exploitaion of animals.
I would like to point out loki, regarding your statement:
"Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited.
As if.
The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast.
In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least."
In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)
freakbass - 11/25/2006 at 02:48
I stand corrected.
(by Dinozoa)
Loki, you didn't answer the question about the avatar.
Can I have yours when your animal fat encrusted body gurgles out its last pathetic hateful breath? Or as Bill Hicks would say, as the last frail haeratbeat can be seen pumping through your translucent bacon-fat skin?
I have been reading your scattered and often purposely-offensive comments for a long time here and have concluded that your avatar is the coolest thing about you. It's really nice. Good work!
Also, I never said vegans will invent nano-health devices. I could care less!
Please let me know.
kthanx,
FB
LOki - 11/25/2006 at 13:11
dinozoa: Veganism is not just a set of dietary restrictions, it's a philosophy. We don't believe in cruelty to or exploitaion of animals.
I would like to point out loki, regarding your statement: LOki:
"Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited.
As if.
The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast.
In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least." In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)
Particularly my point regarding "tell[ing] everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast."
freakbass: I stand corrected.
(by Dinozoa)
Fag.
freakbass: Loki, you didn't answer the question about the avatar. In the unlikely event that your underwear fails to conquer you, and you manage to break free of your wet toilet paper prison with your soy enfeebled muscles... no, you may not have my avatar--though it may be the coolest thing about me, it is certainly far too cool for you.
vasudeva - 11/25/2006 at 15:03
freakbass: I have been reading your scattered and often purposely-offensive comments for a long time here and have concluded that your avatar is the coolest thing about you. It's really nice. Good work!
Look ye well, friends and neighbors, for I believe this is what passes as the High Art of Insulting in limp mushy Freakbassville.
Actually, now that I bother typing this, I think it's been said before -- and by and to the same people.
Uart - 11/25/2006 at 19:38
dinozoa:In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)
Except that Abolitionists and Feminists were fighting for rights for PEOPLE. Not furry little animals who are, by human standards of intelligence, GROSSLY RETARDED.
Savvy?
Animals are not people, and should not be treated as such.
LOki - 11/25/2006 at 20:24
Uart: dinozoa:In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)
Except that Abolitionists and Feminists were fighting for rights for PEOPLE. Not furry little animals who are, by human standards of intelligence, GROSSLY RETARDED.
Savvy?
Animals are not people, and should not be treated as such.
JohnLenin - 11/25/2006 at 20:27
I want to fuck you like an animal.
dinozoa - 11/26/2006 at 05:40
how are your rights infringed by my vegan philosophy?
don't get hysterical guys, this is small business.
JohnLenin - 11/26/2006 at 05:51
because you paint a guilty picture of a hairy knuckled woodsman with an evil brow and devil horns eating doughy-eyed baby seals by the fistful to make yourself feel holier than thou and redeem yourself of completely unrelated sin. want to stop animal cruelty? too bad. now shaddup and eat your burger.
freakbass - 11/26/2006 at 06:36
I have never seen dinozoa exhibit such behavior here. He seems to be pretty non-confrontational about his veganism and tolerant of those who choose to eat animal products. I didn't even know he was vegan until this thread.
all vegans aren't militant PETA members. Some choose to keep their beliefs to themselves and don't force them on anyone else.
lots of vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters alike do not choose this path though, and take it personally when someone has a different philosophy than they do about diet.
To these insecure douche bags who so desperately need to change others, I say: Why don't you just take your intolerance to the next level aready and become a fundamentalist Muslim? Convert people to your beliefs and lifestyle with the sword! Fuck all this pussyfooting around..
Loki, understand but I just shed a tear.. 
dinozoa - 11/26/2006 at 08:57
guitarjon: I'm ok with hairy woodsmen eating dear or whatever.
I don't think it's inappropriate to criticize the vegan philosophy. I criticize a lot of philosophies. I think platonics sucks, for example.
However, I think your arguments that veganism is bad because vegans are self-righteous assholes is incorrect. It is not a criticism of the philosophy, just a criticism of people. There are plenty of people who share your beliefs who are self-righteous assholes. This doesn't mean you're incorrect in everything you say.
I think the only intellectual integrity to this argument is hidden behind a curtain of antagony between the philosophies of veganism and consumerism, which are necessarily opposite. I don't believe eating whatever you want to eat is a natural right. I believe goverments do and should have the authority to prevent the sale or consumption of dangerous foods or medicines or whatever. I think this may be immediately offensive to the libertarians among us, but I am pretty relaxed on what foods and medicines are considered dangerous. You can smoke all the crack you want, guys. Off the top of my head even, I can't think of any food or drug I know about that I'd want the govt to ban consumption of, because I think most adults can make the decision to put whatever they want into their bodies, but I think in theory a drug that turned people into murderous sociopaths would probably be worth banning the consumption of.
To summarize, as you criticize veganism as a philosophy, so do I criticize hedonism.
LOki - 11/26/2006 at 14:25
dinoza:
how are your rights infringed by my vegan philosophy? Precisely the same way that our rights are infringed upon by religion--meaning none. Yet the religious, in the pursuit of their emo-irrational ideology, threaten the rights of others consistently--just like vegans.
freakbass:
I have never seen dinozoa exhibit such behavior here. He seems to be pretty non-confrontational about his veganism and tolerant of those who choose to eat animal products. I didn't even know he was vegan until this thread. Fag.
freakbass:
all vegans aren't militant PETA members. Some choose to keep their beliefs to themselves and don't force them on anyone else.
lots of vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters alike do not choose this path though, and take it personally when someone has a different philosophy than they do about diet. Same is true for Jehova's Witnesses, Muslims, and Born Again Christians--no one has a problem with these assholes when they insist their delusions are good for them, but they become dangerous when they insist their delusions are good for everybody else, and consider themselves morally sanctioned to force everybody to embrace their delusions for "the greater good."
Here's a couple of things that can be claimed by meat eaters that cannot be claimed by vegans: the foundational premise of eating meat is not political, therefore it's not an issue of forcing people to eat meat; meat eaters don't make their diet a moral imperative--meat eaters don't tell you it's morally wrong to not eat meat.
As it turns out freakbass, though it may be true that "all vegans aren't militant PETA members," it is neccessarliy true that all vegans are militant--that's the nature of any political philosophy that will make you do something "for your own good" against your own will.
freakbass:
To these insecure douche bags who so desperately need to change others, I say: Why don't you just take your intolerance to the next level aready and become a fundamentalist Muslim? Convert people to your beliefs and lifestyle with the sword! Fuck all this pussyfooting around... Well, what you may not be considering is that when these "insecure douche bags who so desperately need to change others" (GLEE!) manage to vote little bits of their political aggenda into laws, the precise achievment they have managed is to "convert people to [their] beliefs and lifestyle with the sword."
dinoza:
However, I think your arguments that veganism is bad because vegans are self-righteous assholes is incorrect. It is not a criticism of the philosophy, just a criticism of people. There are plenty of people who share your beliefs who are self-righteous assholes. This doesn't mean you're incorrect in everything you say. Ah, you make a point--guitar_jon should have said, "Veganism makes self-righteuos assholes." The reasons are base primarily upon the argument I have asserted.
(And just because I may be a self-righteuos asshole, that doesn't make my argument wrong--as you have so nicely pointed out.  )
Veganism is not wrong because the people who subscribe to it's farcical tenets are assholes--veganism is wrong because its tenets are farcical.
dinoza:
I think the only intellectual integrity to this argument is hidden behind a curtain of antagony between the philosophies of veganism and consumerism, which are necessarily opposite. Nope, and they're not.
Nice try.
dinoza:
[strawman]I don't believe eating whatever you want to eat is a natural right.[/strawman] No one here has claimed it was.
Nice try.
dinoza:
I believe goverments do and should have the authority to prevent the sale or consumption of dangerous foods or medicines or whatever.blah, blah, blah to appease the wrath of libertarian blargy blarg while holding consistent to the authoritarian premise blah, blah, blah. A nice "we know better than you what is good for you" argument for authoritarianism--it will support my argument that veganism is just a tool for a totalitarianism, like socialism, for instance.
dinoza:
To summarize, [in despration that my position has no intellectual or moral foundation] as you criticize veganism as a philosophy, so do I criticize hedonism. No one presented hedonism to counter veganism.
Nice try.
On 2006-11-26 at 08:46:29, LOki chose to holla @ p-nis
Pchimp - 11/26/2006 at 18:39
Loki:
it is neccessarliy true that all vegans are militant
Haha -- wut? This has got to be the most absurd thing I've ever read from you. I think probably you just bleached your intellectual warbonnet and wanted to strut around showing it off by staking some absurd contrarian position, veering it off unaccountably into familiar anti-statism territory. Are you hiding a subtle connotation of "militant" that I don't know about? I just don't see how this
that's the nature of any political philosophy that will make you do something "for your own good" against your own will.
describes veganism. A personal choice to avoid using animal products is just that -- a personal choice, and one which should be respected (as in they shouldn't be forcefully quashed, not as in they should be free from ridicule).
Here's a couple of things that can be claimed by meat eaters that cannot be claimed by vegans: the foundational premise of eating meat is not political, therefore it's not an issue of forcing people to eat meat; meat eaters don't make their diet a moral imperative--meat eaters don't tell you it's morally wrong to not eat meat.
Blatantly untrue. I've been around a lot of veggies, and I've seen on numerous occasions exactly this behaviour from omnivores towards them. In fact, I see it more often than any prosyletizing by veggies (though I don't claim this anecdotal personal observation to be generally true).
but they become dangerous when they insist their delusions are good for everybody else, and consider themselves morally sanctioned to force everybody to embrace their delusions for "the greater good."
They become dangerous when others are compelled to honor those sanctions; and I think we can all agree that the veggie movement has little political power, much less the fringe vegan subset of that group. But pragmatic considerations aside, what gives you the impression that vegans, as a group, have any goal of coercing others to follow their lifestyle? I'm sure individuals exist who would like to see it happen, through government regulations on food production, but that doesn't describe veganism. It's far-leftie socialist nuttiness that you're on against. Some of them probably also want to coerce you to use public transportation -- that doesn't make bus services coercive.
The fact that some groups want to take an argument based on reason and persuasion (however much you disagree with the premises), and run it forward with coercive tactics does not make the original argument invalid or wrong in any way. It is the linking step, the view that one ought to, or has the right to, force their views on others to "help" them, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what is advocated by someone with this view.
The heart of this seems to be your view that veganism is inherently a political philosophy, rather than a personal, (debatably) healthy lifestyle choice. I can't grok that. Even prosyletizing doesn't make it political. I see how some vegans promote coercive tactics through political action, but this does not a political philosophy make. Can you explain?
LOki - 11/26/2006 at 20:36
Pchimp: Loki:
what LOki said Pchimp picks vegetarianism out of veganism and tells LOki how RONG he is.
Nice try.
Pchimp - 11/26/2006 at 21:15
Nice try
Brilliant comeback.
My understanding of the terms:
Vegetarianism = not eating meat products.
Veganism = not utilizing any product produced from animals. An extreme form of vegetarianism.
I ask you again to explain your understanding of what veganism is. Therein lies the basis for any disagreement, I think. My post above is not meant to apply only to vegetarianism, and I'm not convoluting the terms.
On 2006-11-26 at 15:15:28, Pchimp chose to holla @ p-nis
LOki - 11/26/2006 at 21:48
Pchimp: Nice try
Brilliant comeback.
Pchimp: My understanding of the terms:
Vegetarianism = not eating meat products.
Veganism = not utilizing any product produced from animals. An extreme form of vegetarianism. What is the point of this distinction? Do you have any idea? Have you read any of the previous posts in this thread? Your understanding is seriously lacking--and lacking from your own lack of effort. You can clik your way to wikipedia as effortlessly as anybody, why don't you just start there.
Pchimp: I ask you again to explain your understanding of what veganism is. Therein lies the basis for any disagreement, I think. My post above is not meant to apply only to vegetarianism, and I'm not convoluting the terms. You most certainly are attempting to confuse the terms if you are not simply confused about them, or by them.veganism:
"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Catch up or be culled from the herd.
dinozoa - 11/26/2006 at 21:58
Loki:
You attacked pchimp without attacking his arguments. This is par for the course with you, and is the number one fallacy in your debating style.
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.
vasudeva - 11/26/2006 at 22:27
Pchimp: I think probably you just bleached your intellectual warbonnet
Highlight of this thread.
ghostrider - 11/27/2006 at 00:05
For whatever it's worth (I myself place no value), the vegans I meet nowadays are more health-conscience and way less politically radical than the ones I met 20 years ago. More than a few I know here are hardcore conservatives, albeit ones with health concerns.
Pchimp - 11/27/2006 at 03:03
Loki:
Catch up or be culled from the herd.
I think it's less that I'm falling behind and more that you're leaping ahead with unwarranted extrapolations.
What is the point of this distinction? Do you have any idea?
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.
Forgiving for a moment that there are, as ghost and others point out, many vegans who do not fit the monolithic mold you'd like to carve for them; how does the decision of a group to respect animal rights (which you justifiably deny exist) infringe on your rights? Does a Jew's insistence on keeping kosher interfere with your ability to get a cheap bratwurst?
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? It's clearly the tactic they use that is coercive in this case, not the belief they are trying to push with that tactic.
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. If it were not abundantly clear, this is the claim that I challenged above and which you casually brush aside. Your arguments on this thread can't help but remind me of the gay marriage debate, wherein the religious right similarly claims that respecting gay's right to marry infringes on the sanctity of heterosexual marriages in some way via a hand-waving argument.
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. 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.
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. 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.
JohnLenin - 11/27/2006 at 03:38
pchimp and dinozoa are totally fucking :/
freakbass - 11/27/2006 at 04:22
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?
dragonstaff - 11/27/2006 at 09:05
Bump piss off spamcock
LOki - 11/27/2006 at 11:39
dinozoa: Loki:
You attacked pchimp without attacking his arguments. Reread my response. I addressed his argument directly.
dinoza: This is par for the course with you, and is the number one fallacy in your debating style. Nonsense. Ad-hominem has never been the meat of my argument, it's only the sauce. But since we're critiquing style, I'd say the fault of your own debating style is failing to address your faulty premises--a fine example follows:
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 gay marriage debate, wherein the religious right similarly claims that respecting gay's right to marry infringes on the sanctity of heterosexual 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, DUMBASS!
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?
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.
vasudeva - 11/27/2006 at 14:46
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.
Pchimp - 11/27/2006 at 18:19
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 gay 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.
truenative - 11/27/2006 at 18:25
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 ass 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.
dinozoa - 11/28/2006 at 00:37
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.
dinozoa - 11/28/2006 at 00:51
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.
LOki - 11/28/2006 at 12:23
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 asses. THEY cannot legitimately redefine rights and imprint their bullshit 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.
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.
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 gay 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.
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.
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 - 12/2/2006 at 19:16
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.
dinozoa - 12/2/2006 at 20:27
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.)
LOki - 12/2/2006 at 20:34
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."
dinozoa - 12/2/2006 at 22:03
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.
SexNinja - 12/2/2006 at 23:01
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 fucking trash. They are all kinds of wrong.
vasudeva - 12/2/2006 at 23:12
That's goofy. What are these dipshit gypsy scabs protesting, commerce? They're profiting by the fruits of it anyway. Sounds like a conflation of 'principled' and 'thrifty'.
dinozoa - 12/3/2006 at 05:03
dumpster diving is not protest. why are they dipshit 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.
JohnLenin - 12/3/2006 at 05:18
eating out of the trash is for idiots and bobo
SexNinja - 12/3/2006 at 05:35
dinozoa: dumpster diving is not protest. why are they dipshit 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.
goddamn it, what the hell is wrong with people.
LOki - 12/7/2006 at 16:54
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." Translation: If we [vegans] can convince the world that we can end suffering, then they'll listen to us telling them what they can eat.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." Translation: Once we are powerful enough to controll their diets, we'll control their minds, we'll control all the other aspects of their lives, and then we will rule the world!!!!!Matt Ball:
"We want a vegan world, not a vegan club." Translation: No, REALLY!!!!! The WHOLE FUKING WORLD I TELL YOU!!!!
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." Not even remotely true. The more the consumer knows the better--it just won't neccessarily follow to veganism.
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.
ghostrider - 12/15/2006 at 22:10
Wha??
JohnLenin - 12/15/2006 at 22:44
haha, bullshit propaganda
ghostrider - 12/15/2006 at 22:52
Dude, it's Yahoo
It hasta be true.
dinozoa - 12/15/2006 at 23:54
IQ is a meaningless concept
freakbass - 12/16/2006 at 02:38
I liked the article and will add it to my arsenal even if it's false..
dinozoa - 12/16/2006 at 04:02
are you also going to save articles that say white people have higher iqs than black people because you're white?
Uart - 12/17/2006 at 20:56
freakbass: I liked the article and will add it to my arsenal even if it's false..
I can prove that it is bullshit.
freakbass - 12/19/2006 at 04:24
such things don't matter, dinozoa.
I will send it to people just to piss them off, which is my MO here much of the time.
JohnLenin - 12/19/2006 at 07:00
freakbass: ...just to piss them off, which is my MO here much of the time.
You're just saying that because nobody here likes you.
dinozoa - 12/19/2006 at 10:48
pot calling the kettle black
vasudeva - 12/19/2006 at 14:00
freakbass: I will send it to people just to piss 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:
mundhra - 12/19/2006 at 15:42
I will send it to people just to piss them off, which is my MO here much of the time.
how wotakian.
freakmachine - 1/27/2007 at 23:36
I found this in the very early linkswarm archives:
Veganism is Silly
LOki - 1/28/2007 at 20:10
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.
dinozoa - 1/28/2007 at 20:18
I feel like we hashed out all the things he was talking about in that article. It was still pretty cool and well written.
nocal - 1/29/2007 at 05:41
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 asses. 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.
dinozoa - 1/29/2007 at 09:03
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?
LORDKAHUNA - 1/29/2007 at 15:46
I think you and nocal should fuck, then we can get all this ickyness behind us.
nocal - 1/29/2007 at 16:30
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?
mundhra - 1/29/2007 at 16:56
nocal: Is it fun for you to rape children?
i think it largely depends on whether or not children actually feel pain.
vasudeva - 1/29/2007 at 17:06
Which they do NOT, FIRE ZE SLIP-N-SLIDE RAPE CANNON, *schlumpf* *schlumpf* *schlumpf*
ghostrider - 1/29/2007 at 17:07
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.
vasudeva - 1/29/2007 at 17:15
So veganism is on solid ground if it bears religious underpinnings? Surely you jest. This creates antimatter.
ghostrider - 1/29/2007 at 17:27
No, i'm saying most of them do not have too much, yet they have a high percentage of vegans.
vasudeva - 1/29/2007 at 17:52
Asceticism is its own kind of madness. Worshipping cows, ditto.
dinozoa - 1/29/2007 at 20:33
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 fuck 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.
Hell, 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.
JohnLenin - 1/29/2007 at 20:37
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. Fuck all of you. Forever.
theSASSman - 1/30/2007 at 04:17
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
dinozoa - 1/30/2007 at 04:39
bullshit, and you know it
nocal - 1/30/2007 at 05:18
Your argument is so poorly thought out
Like how you arbitrarily decide which animals are capable of suffering?
dinozoa - 1/30/2007 at 07:03
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.
nocal - 1/30/2007 at 07:21
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 bullshit. If you admit that the basis of veganism is arbitrary, then I think that it serves no one, and no thing, but yourself.
dinozoa - 1/30/2007 at 07:56
It doesn't serve the animals I'm not eating?
Ideology is nothing. How you live your life is everything.
LOki - 1/30/2007 at 10:01
dinozoa: bullshit, and you know it D9L
|
