Total Members Voted: 32
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 09:02:59 PMI have. All it tells me is the various kinds of dietary contortions vegans have to go through just to maintain a serviceable supply of nutrients you could just as easily and more efficiently have obtained from meat.And that makes meat-eating okay?I don't even care if meat-eating increases your lifespan by twenty years.It's still unethical.
I have. All it tells me is the various kinds of dietary contortions vegans have to go through just to maintain a serviceable supply of nutrients you could just as easily and more efficiently have obtained from meat.
Actually what's really unethical here is you being birthed into existence.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 08:48:43 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 08:47:03 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:10:33 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/proteinAnd I recommend you refer me to a non partisan source next time. Veganhealth.org? You can do better than that.I recommend you read the article before forming an irrational opinion.I hope you're trolling, because I thought you were better than that.I have. All it tells me is the various kinds of dietary contortions vegans have to go through just to maintain a serviceable supply of nutrients you could just as easily and more efficiently have obtained from meat. It doesn't discredit meat as a primary component of our diet. In fact, all it's done is convince me of the opposite.
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 08:48:43 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 08:47:03 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:10:33 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/proteinAnd I recommend you refer me to a non partisan source next time. Veganhealth.org? You can do better than that.I recommend you read the article before forming an irrational opinion.I hope you're trolling, because I thought you were better than that.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 08:47:03 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:10:33 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/proteinAnd I recommend you refer me to a non partisan source next time. Veganhealth.org? You can do better than that.
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:10:33 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/protein
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:10:33 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.But, perhaps you're trolling again.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PMQuote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AMHunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).Did you read the OP?The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Quote from: Jocephalopod on May 31, 2015, 08:55:42 PMwhat puzzles my understanding of the philosophy is if antinatalists are prepared to quantify all sentient existence into periods of suffering and happiness, why not strive towards an end goal of strictly happiness instead of wiping away the two options?We strive for both.
what puzzles my understanding of the philosophy is if antinatalists are prepared to quantify all sentient existence into periods of suffering and happiness, why not strive towards an end goal of strictly happiness instead of wiping away the two options?
Quote from: Lemön on May 31, 2015, 08:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 08:54:57 PMYes, it is. Lacking the capacity and legal right to make your own informed choices for yourself until you're eighteen years old sounds like the biggest hassle ever.You can't make an informed choice on whether you wanted to be born until you're informed, which would require you to be born.Or you could realize that imposing life in the first place is wrong, because of that very possibility alone. It's called having foresight.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 08:54:57 PMYes, it is. Lacking the capacity and legal right to make your own informed choices for yourself until you're eighteen years old sounds like the biggest hassle ever.You can't make an informed choice on whether you wanted to be born until you're informed, which would require you to be born.
Yes, it is. Lacking the capacity and legal right to make your own informed choices for yourself until you're eighteen years old sounds like the biggest hassle ever.
Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:02:28 PMdid you miss the 72 billion times that I made a point about painless euthenisationThat would be a logistic nightmare in practice.
did you miss the 72 billion times that I made a point about painless euthenisation
Quote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 09:01:43 PMQuote from: Lemön on May 31, 2015, 08:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 08:54:57 PMYes, it is. Lacking the capacity and legal right to make your own informed choices for yourself until you're eighteen years old sounds like the biggest hassle ever.You can't make an informed choice on whether you wanted to be born until you're informed, which would require you to be born.Or you could realize that imposing life in the first place is wrong, because of that very possibility alone. It's called having foresight."there's a small chance someone might decide they didn't want to be born, so that means nobody should be born to avoid the chance of this extreme minority that isn't even worth considering from occurring"
why? why not just strive for life without suffering?like, what separates an antinatalist from someone who wants to eliminate suffering? Why assign a negative value to birth if that individual's life ultimately helps to create a society based solely on happiness?
"there's a small chance someone might decide they didn't want to be born, so that means nobody should be born to avoid the chance of this extreme minority that isn't even worth considering from occurring"
Yeah unlike convincing evey living thing in the universe to commit sudoku which is sure to happen.
Verb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.
Quote from: Lemön on May 31, 2015, 09:11:29 PM"there's a small chance someone might decide they didn't want to be born, so that means nobody should be born to avoid the chance of this extreme minority that isn't even worth considering from occurring"It's not a small chance. It's a considerably large chance.Even then, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Not only are you imposing life--you're imposing life on this piece of SHIT of a goddamn planet. No sane person would want to be born here.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Yeah, perhaps.I feel bad for derailing your thread, and I've pretty much run the subject into the ground, so I think I'll make my peace for now. I don't have much more to say on either subject.
Quote from: Jocephalopod on May 31, 2015, 09:10:36 PMwhy? why not just strive for life without suffering?like, what separates an antinatalist from someone who wants to eliminate suffering? Why assign a negative value to birth if that individual's life ultimately helps to create a society based solely on happiness?If you're going to impose anything on anyone, you have to have a certainty that it'll work out perfectly in the end. If you take your parents money with the intent on gambling it all away, you better leave the casino a millionaire. And if you're not dead-certain that you'll become a millionaire, you don't have the right to steal the money. So I'm for childbirth in the sense that if you're dead-certain that your child will one day cure cancer, then it's justified.For me, I just don't think there will ever be a point where all suffering will end. There's a concept called the hedonic treadmill. We'll always find a way to be unsatisfied with our lives.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Nonexistance is worse than anything
Quote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 09:19:56 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Yeah, perhaps.I feel bad for derailing your thread, and I've pretty much run the subject into the ground, so I think I'll make my peace for now. I don't have much more to say on either subject.It's fine. The thread already wasn't going the way I'd hoped.
although that does raise the question... do you as antinatalist view all suffering as equal? would you be content in a world where the most severe cases have been wiped away? or rather in a state of eternal happiness..
Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:23:47 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Nonexistance is worse than anythingNonexistence cannot be a bad thing, because there is nothing to experience it as a bad thing. I understand this is counter-intuitive, but it is nonetheless true.Anyway, I don't really want to pick up where Verb left off, so I may make a few more posts but then you'll need to chew over this yourself.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:24:26 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 09:19:56 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Yeah, perhaps.I feel bad for derailing your thread, and I've pretty much run the subject into the ground, so I think I'll make my peace for now. I don't have much more to say on either subject.It's fine. The thread already wasn't going the way I'd hoped. by 'the way you hoped" do you mean eveyonee gathered around in a giant circlejerk praising your nonsence beliefs and praising you as some paragon of ethics? If so I think youre on the wrong site. i'm sure there's a nice vegan reddit for you
and yet you two think nilism is wrong, and since niether of you believe in God then to you that would be the same as nilism....
nonsence beliefs
Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:30:32 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:24:26 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 31, 2015, 09:19:56 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Yeah, perhaps.I feel bad for derailing your thread, and I've pretty much run the subject into the ground, so I think I'll make my peace for now. I don't have much more to say on either subject.It's fine. The thread already wasn't going the way I'd hoped. by 'the way you hoped" do you mean eveyonee gathered around in a giant circlejerk praising your nonsence beliefs and praising you as some paragon of ethics? If so I think youre on the wrong site. i'm sure there's a nice vegan reddit for youAre you aware of how childish your behavior is?I cannot imagine you ever having fruitful discussions with such a mindset.
Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:28:57 PMQuote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:23:47 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Nonexistance is worse than anythingNonexistence cannot be a bad thing, because there is nothing to experience it as a bad thing. I understand this is counter-intuitive, but it is nonetheless true.Anyway, I don't really want to pick up where Verb left off, so I may make a few more posts but then you'll need to chew over this yourself. and yet you two think nilism is wrong, and since niether of you believe in God then to you that would be the same as nilism.... Hey who left a crate of hippos here?
You don't even have to be a vegan, in my opinion. Just don't encourage meat-eating.Years before I was a vegan, I was still able to concede that it's the right thing to do. Then one day, I just decided I wanted to be a bigger part of the cause than that.But that's the minimum standard. You can continue eating meat--but just don't advocate it.I think that's reasonable.
That sounds more hypocritical than anything.
Quote from: Nexus on May 31, 2015, 09:52:04 PMThat sounds more hypocritical than anything.It IS hypocritical. But who gives a fuck? Are hypocrites not allowed to advocate for good causes? If you're too weak to be a vegan, fine, don't be a vegan. But you can still support the cause.
Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:35:19 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:28:57 PMQuote from: Majestic Star Dragon on May 31, 2015, 09:23:47 PMQuote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:18:19 PMVerb, I think you're going about this wrong. You don't need to prove that existence itself is a harm; you just need to prove that nonexistence is better. ^which probably sounds absurd at face value to most people, but philosophically it is perfectly valid.Nonexistance is worse than anythingNonexistence cannot be a bad thing, because there is nothing to experience it as a bad thing. I understand this is counter-intuitive, but it is nonetheless true.Anyway, I don't really want to pick up where Verb left off, so I may make a few more posts but then you'll need to chew over this yourself. and yet you two think nilism is wrong, and since niether of you believe in God then to you that would be the same as nilism.... Hey who left a crate of hippos here?Please read your post again and ask yourself if that is how a reasonable, intellectually honest person would respond.I was hoping you'd approach this with some degree of rationality.
Poll
Is there a difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food?