Vegan argument simulator

 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,476 posts
 
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
What about the fact that several animals suffer when they're not treated that way? Not milking cows can have pretty serious negative effects for their health and the same applies for other animals (sheep not being shaved, for example). Should we just stop milking or shaving them and just accept that it will harm millions of animals or do you suggest we do those things but then just throw away and waste all of the resources?


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,476 posts
 
That guide really underestimates how bad vegan food tastes like.
i think you're overestimating how much it matters

vegan food could taste like literal, actual shit, and i wouldn't stop being a vegan or being an advocate

it helps that it actually doesn't taste that bad, though
For you.

Do you think being misinformed is why more people arent vegan?
Gonna go out on a limb here and say no. I'd imagine that many people are aware of what this might mean for the treatment of animals but continue eating meat because it's tasty, because switching to vegan can take a lot of effort and be more expensive and because they're just used to it.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
What about the fact that several animals suffer when they're not treated that way? Not milking cows can have pretty serious negative effects for their health and the same applies for other animals (sheep not being shaved, for example). Should we just stop milking or shaving them and just accept that it will harm millions of animals or do you suggest we do those things but then just throw away and waste all of the resources?
Surely Verbatim is about to be bested in a war of words.


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,206 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
That guide really underestimates how bad vegan food tastes like.
i think you're overestimating how much it matters

vegan food could taste like literal, actual shit, and i wouldn't stop being a vegan or being an advocate

it helps that it actually doesn't taste that bad, though
For you.

Do you think being misinformed is why more people arent vegan?
Gonna go out on a limb here and say no. I'd imagine that many people are aware of what this might mean for the treatment of animals but continue eating meat because it's tasty, because switching to vegan can take a lot of effort and be more expensive and because they're just used to it.
Pretty much. Theres an objective ethical and moral high ground but youll need more than that when the average person isnt in direct contact with the animal product industry.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
For you.

Do you think being misinformed is why more people arent vegan?
in this day and age, not really—or at least, it's not the biggest reason anymore, but it may have been in the past

i think most people know in their hearts that veganism is just the way to go in the current year

they just don't do it, or find excuses not to do it, out of laziness, apathy, and the fact that they're literally addicted


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
how do you feel about free range chickens for eggs?
i feel like "free range" in general is a meme used to obfuscate what actually goes on, just to reassure people and make them feel like they're not actually doing anything unethical

good article on the subject that will be disregarded as biased and non-factual


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
What about the fact that several animals suffer when they're not treated that way? Not milking cows can have pretty serious negative effects for their health and the same applies for other animals (sheep not being shaved, for example). Should we just stop milking or shaving them and just accept that it will harm millions of animals or do you suggest we do those things but then just throw away and waste all of the resources?
i don't know for sure, but i'd imagine that's only because those particular animals were so heavily specialized to BE exploited, that not exploiting them for their materials would also be harmful to them in the way you noted

animals bred in this fashion should, frankly, be put out of their misery—it's not like they'll be able to survive in the wild, or anything

if this remains true of farm animals that are not specialized, i'm not sure if any such animals even exist at this point, and i guess i would need to see the studies before making any concrete statements on that
Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 11:45:33 AM by Verbatim


 
Eli
| Minuano
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,694 posts
MIND, POWER …気…
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible

i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
how do you feel about free range chickens for eggs?
i feel like "free range" in general is a meme used to obfuscate what actually goes on, just to reassure people and make them feel like they're not actually doing anything unethical

good article on the subject that will be disregarded as biased and non-factual

okay then how do you feel about farmers that raise chickens like any other pet and sell the eggs


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,476 posts
 
What about the fact that several animals suffer when they're not treated that way? Not milking cows can have pretty serious negative effects for their health and the same applies for other animals (sheep not being shaved, for example). Should we just stop milking or shaving them and just accept that it will harm millions of animals or do you suggest we do those things but then just throw away and waste all of the resources?
i don't know for sure, but i'd imagine that's only because those particular animals were so heavily specialized to BE exploited, that not exploiting them for their materials would also be harmful to them in the way you noted

animals bred in this fashion should, frankly, be put out of their misery—it's not like they'll be able to survive in the wild, or anything

if this remains true of farm animals that are not specialized, i'm not sure if any such animals even exist at this point, and i guess i would need to see the studies before making any concrete statements on that
That doesn't seem to be very logically consistent. The animals are there. They're alive and well regardless of whether they were bred to be a certain them. Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and "fulfilling" lives by the standards of animals like them. There's very few pets would be able to survive in the wild either, yet I doubt you advocate for a genocide of dogs, rabbits, birds, horses and so on for that reason. Seems to me that, even if you oppose that these animals were at one point bred to be this way and think we should end this right now, keeping them healthy by occasionally performing a non-invasive and largely painfree/harmless procedure like milking a cow or shaving a sheep is much more humane, respectful and fair than it is to slaughter them by the millions while also letting their "materials" go to waste even though they could ease the suffering of heaps of poor and hungry people.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
That doesn't seem to be very logically consistent.
sure it is

have i not said numerous times that i'd press a button that ends all life for the sake of ending all suffering before

there's no logical inconsistency here, these animals have no chance of leading any kind of purposeful life
Quote
The animals are there. They're alive and well regardless of whether they were bred to be a certain them. Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and "fulfilling" lives by the standards of animals like them.
it's more than humane—it would be the most heroic thing possible to do

describing these animals as alive is fair, but calling them "well" just shows a lack of education on the subject

please describe what is "fulfilling" to a cow for me, i need to hear a good joke
Quote
There's very few pets would be able to survive in the wild either, yet I doubt you advocate for a genocide of dogs, rabbits, birds, horses and so on for that reason.
i mean, i don't think that's a horrible idea either

a yearning for extinction has been a cornerstone of my general philosophy for a very long time—there is nothing more merciful than closing the book on life entirely, and i'm unaware of a better solution

Quote
while also letting their "materials" go to waste even though they could ease the suffering of heaps of poor and hungry people.
if this is what you think i'd want to happen, then you haven't been paying attention (for the past two or three years)

dead animals that are dead should probably be put to good use, yes

veganism is more about activism than it is about dietary choice—if everyone suddenly became a vegan, the next moral step would be to consume all the animal products that have already been made so that it doesn't go to waste, but only under the auspices that no more of it ever gets produced again
Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 08:15:40 PM by Verbatim


Vien | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vien
IP: Logged

13,135 posts
Just some bloke who wanted to be anyone but himself.
How do you feel about hunting in order to control the population? How about killing off and eating invasive species that are destroying the environment such as Florida's lionfish?


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
How do you feel about hunting in order to control the population? How about killing off and eating invasive species that are destroying the environment such as Florida's lionfish?
i've shifted my thoughts on this frequently, but i've come to the conclusion (i think) that population control is a fair cause for that sort of thing—but there are other (perhaps better) solutions, such as reintroduction, because the only reason we need to do such things in the first place is because of overhunting

the reason you might have a deer problem, for example, is because we hunted too many wolves—whose ecological function is to keep deer in check—so of course the deer population is going to rise

reintroducing more wolves into the wilderness would solve the issue, but i won't sit here and tell you that a deer being mauled to death by a wolf is a whole lot better than being shot by a human—it's a pretty fucked up game we have to play, when you think about it

that said, i'm not sure what preys on lionfish—sharks, maybe? not sure how that works
Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 12:30:35 AM by Verbatim


Vien | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vien
IP: Logged

13,135 posts
Just some bloke who wanted to be anyone but himself.
How do you feel about hunting in order to control the population? How about killing off and eating invasive species that are destroying the environment such as Florida's lionfish?
i've shifted my thoughts on this frequently, but i've come to the conclusion (i think) that population control is a fair cause for that sort of thing—but there are other (perhaps better) solutions, such as reintroduction, because the only reason we need to do such things in the first place is because of overhunting

the reason you might have a deer problem, for example, is because we hunted too many wolves—whose ecological function is to keep deer in check—so of course the deer population is going to rise

reintroducing more wolves into the wilderness would solve the issue, but i won't sit here and tell you that a deer being mauled to death by a wolf is a whole lot better than being shot by a human—it's a pretty fucked up game we have to play, when you think about it

that said, i'm not sure what preys on lionfish—sharks, maybe? not sure how that works
Invasive species in states, especially in Florida are impossible to remove by natural means. Iguanas and Tegu Monitor lizards are consuming all of the birds around the Keys. The Lion fish have no natural predators in Florida, and they're killing off other habitats. It's encouraged to kill them actually. As for introducing more animals such as wolves, it isn't feasible outside of nature preserves at this point. Due to the growth of population, you'll see a greater decline in predators. Alongside of which, you have abominations such as coydogs/coywolves that are becoming more common around urban areas. They're becoming an issue around where I live, and they've killed off two of my house cats before dusk.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,476 posts
 
You're ignoring that there is no magical button though. It's easy to muse about a beautiful theoretical end of all life and suffering but that's not the reality. Committing genocide on dozens of species and killing billions of animals would cause a lot of pain, fear and suffering that could largely be avoided by just not breeding them anymore but treating them humanely for the rest of their lives. The logical inconsistency seems to lie in you basing all of this on respect for agency and an aversion of suffering, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with imposing (or ignoring) suffering and violating and killing untold amounts of animals because you're the superior creature who gets to decide how they're treated. Life is bad because it comes with suffering. You can reduce the suffering of billions of creatures by taking some control of their agency. But doing so and not respecting them is bad from a moral point of view. Since you're telling me they can't live a purposeful life (something you're deciding for that animal) you advocate killing them all which not only causes suffering but also violates their autonomy in the most significant way and goes directly against their deepest and most fundamental desire.

I'm also puzzled by what you imagine a purposeful life would be like for an animal. They are objectively below us in intelligence and understanding of the world. They don't strive to make the world a better place, neither do they really engage in life-long planning or anything purposeful or worthwhile. They're born and try to survive from day to day and week to week. Feed, breed, survive, repeat. That's it. There's nothing more to the lives of most of these animals and for many this does not change whether they're out in the wild or in captivity. I can assure you that my dog has a much happier and more comfortable life almost entirely free from any suffering with me than he would if set free and left to fend for himself (he'd just die looking for me and wanting to get back), and the same goes for a milk cow treated humanely. So what do we do with the ones that live now? Set them free, something which will likely cause more suffering than just treating them properly for the rest of their lives? Kill off healthy animals with years left to live, something which will violate them more gravely than anything else? Seems like no matter the choice, you're going against a core aspect of your philosophy.

I guess that logical inconsistency I see is that you advocate killing them all (which violates, disrespects and harms the animals and their agency/autonomy) because you think they can't have any sort of purposeful life anyways (which is kind of your own speciest argument where we get to do whatever we want and treat these creatures in any way because we're superior and get to decide what's worthwhile or right/wrong for them). Killing them violates their autonomy and puts you in a position of superiority enforcing your views on the animal. Setting them free will cause mayhem and enormous amounts of pain, fear and suffering for millions of creatures. Perhaps letting them live on in humane conditions and continue being milked/shaved is both less of an invasion of their agency and overall causes them a lower amount of suffering.
Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 04:40:34 AM by Flee


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
Verbatim never has any real solution apart from kill everybody and everything.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
Verbatim never has any real solution apart from kill everybody and everything.
mainly because there is no other solution


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
Verbatim never has any real solution apart from kill everybody and everything.
mainly because there is no other solution
It's a cop-out.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
You're ignoring that there is no magical button though.
It's nothing that couldn't be invented.

Quote
The logical inconsistency seems to lie in you basing all of this on respect for agency and an aversion of suffering, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with imposing (or ignoring) suffering and violating and killing untold amounts of animals because you're the superior creature who gets to decide how they're treated.
Of course—do you not think parents should have some degree of control over their children's behavior? Sometimes you have to override someone's agency for the greater good. Again, there is no inconsistency here. I'm not expressing anything I haven't expressed for years upon years.

Quote
Life is bad because it comes with suffering. You can reduce the suffering of billions of creatures by taking some control of their agency. But doing so and not respecting them is bad from a moral point of view. Since you're telling me they can't live a purposeful life (something you're deciding for that animal) you advocate killing them all which not only causes suffering but also violates their autonomy in the most significant way and goes directly against their deepest and most fundamental desire.
Their deepest and most fundamental desire is to copulate and reproduce, not to live. No animal wants to "live." They just don't want to die. They don't understand why they don't want to die (or why they'd be better off dead). They're just running a primitive biological script that tells them that dying is bad, survival is good. For what reason? There is no reason. So, we could pointlessly maintain their pitiful, pointless, joyless existences to make ourselves feel moral, but the reality is that most factory-bred animals wouldn't well appreciate it. A lot of them live in squalor, are missing body parts, are severely overweight, or have various other debilitating conditions. They may not want to die, but they certainly don't want to suffer, either. But they are suffering. And you want to maintain it for some reason, with bizarre pathos-based reasoning.
Quote
I'm also puzzled by what you imagine a purposeful life would be like for an animal.
That's what I'm asking you. So are you retracting this silly statement you made?

"Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and 'fulfilling' lives by the standards of animals like them."

There is no fulfilled life without purpose.
Quote
So what do we do with the ones that live now? Set them free, something which will likely cause more suffering than just treating them properly for the rest of their lives? Kill off healthy animals with years left to live, something which will violate them more gravely than anything else? Seems like no matter the choice, you're going against a core aspect of your philosophy.
But I'm not. A core aspect of my philosophy is that we're all better off dead. On a different timeline, I might have been a mad scientist working to create a doomsday button.

"Healthy animals with years left to live" to do WHAT, exactly? And they aren't healthy, by the way. Try doing some research. Hell, you don't even need research. Look up any factory farm, take a cursory glance at the animals and the conditions they're "living" in, and then think really hard about what a ridiculous statement you just made.

Quote
I guess that logical inconsistency I see is that you advocate killing them all (which violates, disrespects and harms the animals and their agency/autonomy)
No it doesn't.

Quote
because you think they can't have any sort of purposeful life anyways (which is kind of your own speciest argument where we get to do whatever we want and treat these creatures in any way because we're superior and get to decide what's worthwhile or right/wrong for them).
We're not the ones deciding what's right or wrong for them. You can't even decide that for yourself, because morality is objective. It's not a whim-based decision, it's a responsibility based on raw logic.

Reality sucks, therefore let's get the fuck out of here. Basic stuff.

It's not a meaningful example speciesism, because I'm trying to save the animals by delivering them from the shittiest world imaginable. If anything, that's speciesist against humans, because we'd still be here.

Otherwise, parenting children should be considered ageism to you now. Not only is it ageism, it is a meaningful example of ageism. Children should be able to run free with no guidance whatsoever, is what you're basically trying to say.

Quote
Killing them violates their autonomy and puts you in a position of superiority enforcing your views on the animal. Setting them free will cause mayhem and enormous amounts of pain, fear and suffering for millions of creatures. Perhaps letting them live on in humane conditions and continue being milked/shaved is both less of an invasion of their agency and overall causes them a lower amount of suffering.
Yes, yes, perhaps delaying the inevitable makes us look more moral without actually being so. Yes, yes. Quite.

Don't put them out of their misery now. Wait until after they've suffered intensely for a few more years in an utterly pointless, unfulfilling, and unhappy existence. Yes, very rational. Very fair. Very humane.
Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 11:32:04 AM by Verbatim


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
okay then how do you feel about farmers that raise chickens like any other pet and sell the eggs
Then that's probably okay? Maybe? But that's SO rare, because chickens simply aren't like "any other pet." There's many extra things you have to account for, otherwise raising chickens might have been more of a regular thing.

This is a good article

Either way, if you've already given up eggs for an extended period of time, you probably won't have much of a taste for them anyway. I'm at a point where I can't even enjoy anything that came from an animal.
Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 11:47:07 AM by Verbatim


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,960 posts
 
     I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:

 Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.

 We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,960 posts
 
You're ignoring that there is no magical button though.
It's nothing that couldn't be invented.
It depends on what you define as killing off everything. If by that we mean to kill of every single person, animal or plant, we can just continuosly nuke same place over and over again until our nukes reach magnetic core of Earth and disrupt it, which cause magnetic field of Earth to dissapear and everything to die from radiation sooner or later, well almost everything. Some things will survive and adapt to new conditions. It`s however, a temporary solution, it probably be enough to put our planet down long enough until Sun explode or whatever happens to it.

Well, we might create a black hole, but it`s unreliable solution either, because no one knows how it works. I can only say that living or being in it, if it`s possible, will be different from your or any other human definition of word "living" or "being" so that accomplishes goal of destroying everything living. 


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
     I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:

 Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.

 We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.
How the hell are we gonna extinguish plants we literally grow them. Cows, pigs, and chickens are also nowhere near extinction.


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,960 posts
 
The logical inconsistency seems to lie in you basing all of this on respect for agency and an aversion of suffering, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with imposing (or ignoring) suffering and violating and killing untold amounts of animals because you're the superior creature who gets to decide how they're treated.
Of course—do you not think parents should have some degree of control over their children's behavior? Sometimes you have to override someone's agency for the greater good. Again, there is no inconsistency here. I'm not expressing anything I haven't expressed for years upon years.
I see another logic inconsistency - you are proposing us veganism, main purpose of which is to save animals and the next thing you say is that it`s better to kill everything. Well, then I really don`t see any other reason for this thread to exist outside of "the sake of argument", "simulation purposes", where you try to attain higher moral ground over people who aren`t vegans and thats basically a hypocrisy.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
You're ignoring that there is no magical button though.
It's nothing that couldn't be invented.
It depends on what you define as killing off everything. If by that we mean to kill of every single person, animal or plant, we can just continuosly nuke same place over and over again until our nukes reach magnetic core of Earth and disrupt it, which cause magnetic field of Earth to dissapear and everything to die from radiation sooner or later, well almost everything. Some things will survive and adapt to new conditions. It`s however, a temporary solution, it probably be enough to put our planet down long enough until Sun explode or whatever happens to it.

Well, we might create a black hole, but it`s unreliable solution either, because no one knows how it works. I can only say that living or being in it, if it`s possible, will be different from your or any other human definition of word "living" or "being" so that accomplishes goal of destroying everything living.
Life isn't anime


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,476 posts
 
Life isn't anime
This alone proves that there's still an inherent good to the universe. Antinatalism disproven at last.


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,960 posts
 
     I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:

 Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.

 We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.
How the hell are we gonna extinguish plants we literally grow them. Cows, pigs, and chickens are also nowhere near extinction.
Oh, thats not that hard if there will be much much more animals. In fact, some forests on our planet are already gone due to people cutting them to gain money for example and build there some stuff on it`s place.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
     I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:

 Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.

 We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.
I don't think we'll ever have to worry about fruit and vegetable-bearing plants going extinct. They're incredibly easy to regrow, and I think we've been doing a pretty good job overall with that. You're right in saying it's not perfect, but I just don't foresee it becoming a serious issue, even in the distant future.

It's good that you're thinking about these things, and being an environmentalist is a good idea in general, but when it comes to saving plants, I think environmentalists are more concerned with things like deforestation and hydraulic fracturing and stuff, not edible plants (and fungi).

I'm more concerned about animals because they suffer, whereas plants don't. That's all I really care about right now.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,688 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
     I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:

 Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.

 We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.
How the hell are we gonna extinguish plants we literally grow them. Cows, pigs, and chickens are also nowhere near extinction.
Oh, thats not that hard if there will be much much more animals. In fact, some forests on our planet are already gone due to people cutting them to gain money for example and build there some stuff on it`s place.
Deforestation doesn't have have much to do with growing fruits and vegetables. In fact a lot of it is hydroponic these days.

Also I told you already you're using ` instead of '. It's two different symbols with different meanings. I won't knock on the fact that you have trouble constructing a sentence in English but it's like you don't give a fuck that you're doing it wrong.


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,960 posts
 
Life is bad because it comes with suffering. You can reduce the suffering of billions of creatures by taking some control of their agency. But doing so and not respecting them is bad from a moral point of view. Since you're telling me they can't live a purposeful life (something you're deciding for that animal) you advocate killing them all which not only causes suffering but also violates their autonomy in the most significant way and goes directly against their deepest and most fundamental desire.
Their deepest and most fundamental desire is to copulate and reproduce, not to live. No animal wants to "live." They just don't want to die. They don't understand why they don't want to die (or why they'd be better off dead). They're just running a primitive biological script that tells them that dying is bad, survival is good. For what reason? There is no reason. So, we could pointlessly maintain their pitiful, pointless, joyless existences to make ourselves feel moral, but the reality is that most factory-bred animals wouldn't well appreciate it. A lot of them live in squalor, are missing body parts, are severely overweight, or have various other debilitating conditions. They may not want to die, but they certainly don't want to suffer, either. But they are suffering. And you want to maintain it for some reason, with bizarre pathos-based reasoning.
There is so much wrong with this. First of all, how do you know what animals want exactly or in what way they think? Second of all, humans are also animals. And yet most of humans want something, follow something and have some plan in their head. Third, humans evolved from chimps and same can happen to other animals, expecially in our presence. So there is reason to maintain animals, yes. Fourth, life is suffering, YES, RIGHT, TRUE, and yet we have people which suffer a lot and off they go to work which they might not even like.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,972 posts
It depends on what you define as killing off everything. If by that we mean to kill of every single person, animal or plant, we can just continuosly nuke same place over and over again until our nukes reach magnetic core of Earth and disrupt it, which cause magnetic field of Earth to dissapear and everything to die from radiation sooner or later, well almost everything. Some things will survive and adapt to new conditions. It`s however, a temporary solution, it probably be enough to put our planet down long enough until Sun explode or whatever happens to it.

Well, we might create a black hole, but it`s unreliable solution either, because no one knows how it works. I can only say that living or being in it, if it`s possible, will be different from your or any other human definition of word "living" or "being" so that accomplishes goal of destroying everything living.
Nukes/black holes are a little too violent and scary for my liking—my ideal apocalypse is quiet, peaceful, painless.

I see another logic inconsistency - you are proposing us veganism, main purpose of which is to save animals and the next thing you say is that it`s better to kill everything. Well, then I really don`t see any other reason for this thread to exist outside of "the sake of argument", "simulation purposes", where you try to attain higher moral ground over people who aren`t vegans and thats basically a hypocrisy.
I don't see how it's a hypocrisy, if you could explain that for me.

While I do believe that life is better off not existing, I still have to come to terms with the fact it does exist.

The best thing about life is that it is possible to change it for the better. So, while I'd prefer life not to exist at all, it can't be helped—the next best thing for me to try to do, then, is to do my part in spreading the word about all the things I believe will make the world a better place to live in.

Right now, I just have two rules—1.) Don't have kids, and 2.) Go vegan. Everything else is fairly self-explanatory. Be honest, treat people how you wanna be treated, obey the laws of your country, etc.

It's not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism. I realize I'm not going to get what I want out of this life, so I work with what I have.