Meat eating might have made us human, sorry peta/vegetarians. Not.

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Meat eating might have made us human, sorry peta/vegetarians. Not.

Anthropologist Finds Evidence of Hominin Meat Eating 1.5 Million Years Ago: Eating Meat May Have 'Made Us Human'
ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2012) — A skull fragment unearthed by anthropologists in Tanzania shows that our ancient ancestors were eating meat at least 1.5 million years ago, shedding new light into the evolution of human physiology and brain development.

"Meat eating has always been considered one of the things that made us human, with the protein contributing to the growth of our brains," said Charles Musiba, Ph.D., associate professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado Denver, who helped make the discovery. "Our work shows that 1.5 million years ago we were not opportunistic meat eaters, we were actively hunting and eating meat."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Yeah, you've

Manageri wrote:

Yeah, you've "explained" you don't care about hurting animals as much, just like racists have "explained" they don't care about hurting whatever race they don't like as much. What you haven't done is explain why these should be viewed as ethically different, not that I expect you to since they aren't (in any significant way).

if you can escort me to the prehistoric temple where the universal, immutable laws of ethics are inscribed on golden tablets that have existed from time immemorial, and point out the validity of your position, i'll admit you're right.

ethics are conditioned and subjective, fucker, just like every fucking other thing in existence.

again, why the fuck are you even still talking to me?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
No wonder fire is sacred

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

x wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

More recently there is a book which I cannot remember the title of nor find in my collection on cooking being the most important factor for a whole host of reasons. Among them, less time eating and both more available nutrition and and less energy needed for digestion. Not only more available nutrition but less energy spent digesting it.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/invention-of-cooking-drove-evolution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_140989346.pdf

Yes. An excellant read and a very well made case. It is so well made I think I might have overlooked something and it might be in some way exaggerated. One of the clinchers is it does identify a universal human trait which is supposedly non-existent. Men collect meat, women the veggies and do the cooking for their men. The men determine with whom all the food is shared. It is a universal paradigm related to cooking and indicating it is part of human nature because of evolution. It is a thing that makes us human.

It is very worth your time and you might search thepiratebay if feeling broke this week.

 

I've vowed to not add to my 'books to read' list for a while, it's getting out of hand.

I first heard about it on this BBC documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf_OWun4Y04

It is obviously more superficial than a book, but it struck me as persuasive as there seems to be accepted evidence. Presumably further archaeological research will be done to verify this and then one can be convinced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/02/scientists-clue-human-evolution-question

Goldberg added that the evidence from Wonderwerk Cave goes some way to supporting Wrangham's cooking hypothesis. "To tell you the truth, I've heard Richard give several lectures on this topic but I've said [previously] there's no archaeological evidence, so I dismissed it myself," he said. "And here we are and we found this evidence. One of the reasons, perhaps, that ashes evidence of fire doesn't show up [in other places] is that people aren't using the right techniques and approaches."

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:What I

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What I thought was amusing ...( snip ) ...was the idea the culture wars are bloodless.

 

 

 

 

     Okay, I'll be on the lookout for news headlines regarding bloody wars fought between angry, militant vegans and the rest of meat-eating humanity.  

 

 

( I guess I better start stocking up on steaks and hamburger now in case the vegan freedom-fighters start a military campaign in my region.  This could be a long and bloody war and meat may become a rare commodity.  )

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Does that

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Does that response mean you are this type?

4. Vegan

Yes, when I say I'm vegan, that means I'm vegan. Do I need a neon sign or something?

 

Quote:

I left out the qualifier multi-vitamin to the horse pill reference.

You'd still be full of shit as I in fact take multi vitamin pill that contains B12 but I don't know why I bother responding to such idiotic mush, it's not like no one's ever seen a friggin vitamin pill before.

Quote:
But the issue of B12 is that it is an animal product and if you are a type 4 veggie you do not eat B12.

You really are completely full of shit. B12 is produced by bacteria. What fucking definition of veganism says a motherfucking thing about bacteria? Find me one site giving nutritional advice to vegans that does not mention the importance of B12, I dare you.

Quote:
I only point it out in that I have never come across a veggie source giving the slightest hint that there is an issue of whole protein. I have seen plenty of individual dishes but no suggestion whatsoever that a proper amino acid mix must be consumed in the same meal. Type 4 veggies like you without dairy have only nuts, grains and legumes for the same meal serving. You don't have the cheese, milk and eggs that save most veggies from obvious deficiencies.

You keep talking about specific nutrients. I am talking amino acids to make human proteins. Nor am I saying it is impossible to have a healthy veggie diet. It is possible for any diet to be deficient.

You know why they don't talk about that any more? Because the idea that you need to combine all those amino acids in the same meal was debunked quite a while ago. Every site I've seen does in fact mention that you need to combine the different sources.

Quote:
Antibiotics do provide that medical care in preventing disease regardless of the reason given. Motive does not change fact. And you given this imputation of motives to ignore the individual medical care given to sheep, hogs and cattle. That gives me three out of four. Motive does not change fact. The interests of the farmers and the animals coincide.

Oh wow, well if you give the jew a flu shot then I guess it's ok to keep him in the concentration camp.

The interests of the farmers and animals coincide only in keeping them healthy enough not to drop dead (at least you could argue that, I think they'd be better off dropping dead asap). Beyond that the farmers need not care how well they're treated. Your "individual medical care" is a fucking joke, if an animal gets sick the farmer doesn't call a vet to treat it, it gets disposed of. This is often why dairy cows are sent to slaughter when they are, they get sick (their udders tend to get infected due to the awesome conditions and lovely selective breeding practices that maximize milk production without any concern for how that affects the cow) so the farmer has a choise of treating them or getting rid of em, guess which one is more profitable?

Quote:

Slavery is not a trump card. Freedom from hunger, thirst and predators are no mean freedoms. Rather slavery does make the case that what is good enough for humans for all but the last 200 years can't be all that bad.

Did you just fucking call slavery good enough for humans? Amazing, really.

Quote:
As the only choice animals have, were they able to make choices, would be thirst, hunger and predators it is nonsense to attempt to anthropomorphize the discussion.

Right, dogs only drink, eat, nap and occasionally look out the window to make sure something's not trying to come in to eat them. What fucking planet do you live on? Animals (mammals in particular) can quite obviously have complex social structures and desires, why don't you go see how happy the cows seem when their calves are taken away from them. Moron.

Quote:
If you want to show animal "suffering" I can match you link for link with pictures of kids with big bellies in dusty countries which lack modern agricultural methods.

Are you one of them? Then why the fuck should I care? You think factory farms in the US feed those people? Pathetic argument as usual.

Quote:
There is no species with a lock on "suffering" nor on what causes it.

So this means you are not responsible for the suffering you cause and should not be ethically required to do as little as can be reasonably expected? This is getting so fucking desperate.

Quote:
There is even speculation that even pre-humans have been helping grazing animals for millions of years by burning scrub land decreasing food sources for browsers and increasing them for grazers. Considering the wild ancestor of cattle no longer exists cattle themselves owe their existence to humans. Otherwise they would gone extinct thousands of years ago. We own them.

Well then Josef Fritzl owned his daughter and you have no argument for condemning his actions, fucknut.

Quote:
Quote:
Well the modern farm animals would largely be fucked in the wild, and nowhere did I suggest releasing them into it, so I don't see how this is a response to something I've said.

So what is your issue with allowing them to breed? Do you miss the Highlander method of selecting the dominant male? Or do you object to artificial insemination?

Why would we keep them around, they don't serve any purpose. Especially since the selective breeding we've imposed on them makes their lives even shitter in many ways than wild animals' lives.

Quote:
Ethics is a late invention compared to law and social custom. If your grasp of ethics is at a level where you can only apply it to physical assault you are going to love the second lecture in Ethics 101. Or it may scare you off to learn it is much harder than such trivial examples.

I did not appeal to nature in regard to eating meat.

Then what the fuck do you call pointing to OTHER SPECIES IN NATURE other than an appeal to nature.

Quote:
Since you sidewise asked, it is available and it tastes good and it does not eat me first.

Well then I guess since rape is available and it feels good and if they can't rape me first then I can go for it, brilliant.

Quote:
Beyond plants life eats life. That is what this world is like. I did not make it despite my occassional pretensions.

You just fucking appealed to nature AGAIN. Are you seriously retarded?

Quote:
In any other species human infants would be premature births. Have you never notices that stuff that comes out of their anus does not smell like what comes out of children and older? It even has its own name which you can google. There metabolism is different. Their bodies are different. They can breath and swallow at the same time. Their brains are tripling in size before they can be called children.

Then by definition since they're human they're not premature births now are they, not that your bullshit made any sense anyway. No one is saying infants should be fed the same shit adults or older children are under any diet, so how about you point to some evidence that proves any of your bullshit, like what mysterious substance it is that infants require that humans of other ages do not for whatever reason and that can only be found in nonvegan stuff.

Quote:
Quote:
what I meant was pretty obvious from the context. What's healthy? Just compare children (I'm including infants here again) on a vegan diet to those on a typical omnivore one. Maybe you could also try to explain why all these health organizations deem a proper vegan diet healthy in all stages of life if there's ample evidence, as you claim, that this is not so.

Considering "vegan" can mean anything from essentially raw food only to occasional meat eating claiming "proper vegan diet" is meaningless.

Idiot, it obviously means the kind of diet that the people who actually have some fucking clue about nutrition have deemed healthy. The fact you don't know what vegan means is evidence only of your perposterous ignorance.

Quote:
Take for example yourself as a type 4 Vegan, no animal products of any kind. That eliminating breast feeding. It eliminates enslaving the mother to the food needs of the infant. An ethical infant should starve rather than do that.

You really should be banned from all forms of communication for making a statement this fucking idiotic.

Quote:
Taking tongue out of cheek because tongue is meat and eating one's self is unethical all your claims of "vegan is good" are meaningless without defining what you mean by vegan. You have specifically declined to do that. That is bullshit.

Veganism is pretty damn unambiguously defined, you could just like check wikipedia if you have doubts. The fact you don't know that is still evidence of nothing but what a humongous ignorant tool you are.

Quote:
The difference is the 100 year old Japanese diet was nearly EXACTLY one of they many kinds of veggie diets you want to lump all under a single term vegan despite their being radically different.

I don't give a shit what japs ate 100 years ago and I don't give a shit what the average "veggie diet" today is, I'm talking about one kind of diet only so how is any of this relevant?

Quote:
You appear to be trying to foist an incredible idea that the same dietary elements or restrictions eaten today are different and "better" than if eaten a century ago. Rice and wheat and whatever have been the same for millenia. Calling it ancient or modern does not change the nutritional value of the foods consumed.

Show me the evidence of the japanese over 100 years ago following the recommendations of what is considered a healthy vegan diet today, fucker. It's amazing how many facts you can pull out of just one ass.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:if you can

iwbiek wrote:

if you can escort me to the prehistoric temple where the universal, immutable laws of ethics are inscribed on golden tablets that have existed from time immemorial, and point out the validity of your position, i'll admit you're right.

ethics are conditioned and subjective, fucker, just like every fucking other thing in existence.

again, why the fuck are you even still talking to me?

Yes, according to you assholes ethics is always subjective when it comes to you having to sacrifice something for someone else, but as soon as the tables are turned and someone is being selfish towards you then all of a sudden you drop the subjective bullshit and have no problem condemning their behaviour. The point is being consistent, something you fail at.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No moron, ethics are ALWAYS

No moron, ethics are ALWAYS fucking subjective. Grow a fucking brain.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:but as soon

Manageri wrote:

but as soon as the tables are turned and someone is being selfish towards you then all of a sudden you drop the subjective bullshit and have no problem condemning their behaviour.

exactly.  that's part of the fucking subjectivity.  when humans feel threatened, they back up their subjectivity with force.  some humans call subjectivity backed by force objectivity.  i don't.

 

Manageri wrote:
 

The point is being consistent, something you fail at.

 

i and the whole human race, asshole, including you.  there isn't, nor has there ever been, a consistent human on this planet.  we aren't even physiologically wired for that.  not even jean chauvin.

one thing i have been consistent about on this thread, however: i consider a human life infinitely more valuable than an animal's life.  you keep responding that makes me the same as a racist.  and on and on and on it goes.  why the fuck are you still talking to me?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:.  why the

iwbiek wrote:
.  why the fuck are you still talking to me?

Because he needs to portray himself as a martyr for militant veganism?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He's not doing so well in

He's not doing so well in that regard. You generally need to have a point to be a martyr. Loving big eyed meat sacs won't quite cut it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Manageri

iwbiek wrote:

Manageri wrote:

but as soon as the tables are turned and someone is being selfish towards you then all of a sudden you drop the subjective bullshit and have no problem condemning their behaviour.

exactly.  that's part of the fucking subjectivity.  when humans feel threatened, they back up their subjectivity with force.  some humans call subjectivity backed by force objectivity.  i don't.

No, that's called inconsistency. You're mixing psychology with philosophy which is fucking stupid. The fact people might not live up to their ethical standards due to their psychology does not say anything about those standards.

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
 

The point is being consistent, something you fail at.

i and the whole human race, asshole, including you.  there isn't, nor has there ever been, a consistent human on this planet.  we aren't even physiologically wired for that.  not even jean chauvin.

So the fuck what, are we supposed to take the fact humans are by nature inconsistent assholes to mean there's no point in trying to be LESS of an inconsistent asshole? This is just yet another moronic rationalization like "well since everyone around me is enslaving black people then it's ok if I do it too".

Quote:
one thing i have been consistent about on this thread, however: i consider a human life infinitely more valuable than an animal's life.  you keep responding that makes me the same as a racist.  and on and on and on it goes.  why the fuck are you still talking to me?

Yeah, and you refuse to address that accusation with any fucking logic explaining how you are in fact behaving any differently than any other kind of discriminatory asshole, such as a racist. All you do is whip out your moronic subjectivity card as if that's an excuse for inconsistency (and as if that can't be used for literally any fucking ethical argument anyone could make about anything), and now you're just saying you've consistently refused to defend your inconsistency (fucking amazing that one), and acting surprised for some unfathomable reason as to why I'm talking to someone who's talking to me.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:iwbiek

jcgadfly wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
.  why the fuck are you still talking to me?

Because he needs to portray himself as a martyr for militant veganism?

Lol, should we also call people making arguments strictly opposed to rape "martyrs for militant anti-rapism"? Oh I forgot, you assholes don't believe in consistency so of course not.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
.  why the fuck are you still talking to me?

Because he needs to portray himself as a martyr for militant veganism?

Lol, should we also call people making arguments strictly opposed to rape "martyrs for militant anti-rapism"? Oh I forgot, you assholes don't believe in consistency so of course not.

You and those red herrings... I thought you didn't want to be cruel to fish.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You and those

jcgadfly wrote:

You and those red herrings... I thought you didn't want to be cruel to fish.

*Reference random logical fallacy and pretend you just made an argument*


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What I thought was amusing ...( snip ) ...was the idea the culture wars are bloodless.

     Okay, I'll be on the lookout for news headlines regarding bloody wars fought between angry, militant vegans and the rest of meat-eating humanity.  

( I guess I better start stocking up on steaks and hamburger now in case the vegan freedom-fighters start a military campaign in my region.  This could be a long and bloody war and meat may become a rare commodity.  )

Or between slave and industrial cultures. Or peasant and nobility cultures.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You and those red herrings... I thought you didn't want to be cruel to fish.

*Reference random logical fallacy and pretend you just made an argument*

*bring up shit that has nothing to do with the topic and think you made a point.*

This game is fun.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Or

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Or between slave and industrial cultures. Or peasant and nobility cultures.

   ...or between the values of vegan fanatics and human omnivores per the OP.   

So, your point in correcting me is that I should be on the look out for some type of bloody "Arab Spring" to be waged by militant vegans ?  If not, try using context when attempting to decipher the use of such complicated terms as "culture wars"instead of going off on needless tangents.

 

  Enlighten yourself:  www.culture-war.info

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Oh I forgot,

Manageri wrote:

Oh I forgot, you assholes don't believe in consistency so of course not.

BINGO!  THANK YOU!  in case you haven't noticed, this site is dedicated to not believing in things that don't exist.  consistency doesn't exist.

and i can't believe you're actually bringing philosophy into this shit.  philosophy is nothing but an arbitrary construct we use to anchor our ideas to some sort of seemingly consistent backdrop.  it's a way of propping up our egos, which also don't exist in any objective sense, and thus it's inseparable from psychology.  almost everything is inseparable from psychology.  your fetishizing of "ethics" is pathetic. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Manageri

iwbiek wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Oh I forgot, you assholes don't believe in consistency so of course not.

BINGO!  THANK YOU!  in case you haven't noticed, this site is dedicated to not believing in things that don't exist.  consistency doesn't exist.

Hilarious, so believing that rape is wrong and for that reason refusing to commit rape does not exist?

Quote:
and i can't believe you're actually bringing philosophy into this shit.  philosophy is nothing but an arbitrary construct we use to anchor our ideas to some sort of seemingly consistent backdrop.  it's a way of propping up our egos, which also don't exist in any objective sense, and thus it's inseparable from psychology.  almost everything is inseparable from psychology.  your fetishizing of "ethics" is pathetic.

Bringing philosophy into this? What the fuck do you think ethics is if not a branch of philosophy?

You really are too fucking silly to have a discussion with about anything meaningful.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Bringing

Manageri wrote:

 

Bringing philosophy into this? What the fuck do you think ethics is if not a branch of philosophy?

and what is philosophy?  an artificial, arbitrary construct, a product of our psyches.  yet you continue to appeal to it and dog others for appealing to nature.  at least nature can be observed, unlike some metaphysical realm of philosophy.

Manageri wrote:

You really are too fucking silly to have a discussion with about anything meaningful.

and yet you continue...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:iwbiek

Manageri wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Oh I forgot, you assholes don't believe in consistency so of course not.

BINGO!  THANK YOU!  in case you haven't noticed, this site is dedicated to not believing in things that don't exist.  consistency doesn't exist.

Hilarious, so believing that rape is wrong and for that reason refusing to commit rape does not exist?

Quote:
and i can't believe you're actually bringing philosophy into this shit.  philosophy is nothing but an arbitrary construct we use to anchor our ideas to some sort of seemingly consistent backdrop.  it's a way of propping up our egos, which also don't exist in any objective sense, and thus it's inseparable from psychology.  almost everything is inseparable from psychology.  your fetishizing of "ethics" is pathetic.

Bringing philosophy into this? What the fuck do you think ethics is if not a branch of philosophy?

You really are too fucking silly to have a discussion with about anything meaningful.

There's that fish again.

Let me summarize your position for you:

You: Eating meat is wrong for everybody!

Us: Why?

You: Because I think it's icky.

You only get fucking silly when you give fucking silly.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:and what is

iwbiek wrote:

and what is philosophy?  an artificial, arbitrary construct, a product of our psyches.  yet you continue to appeal to it and dog others for appealing to nature.  at least nature can be observed, unlike some metaphysical realm of philosophy.

It's basically just doing logic, silly person. Appealing to logic and appealing to "well monkeys throw shit at each other so I can too" are in no way the same thing, but since you deny we should rely on logic I can hardly provide any convincing logical support for why you are an idiot for doing so now can I?

Btw what do you think our observation of the nature you place on a pedestal is, if not a product of our psyches which you just shat on? But this isn't a problem for you of course (indeed nothing at all is), since you can just turn your "consistency doesn't matter" program on whenever it suits you.

Someone wants to rape kids? According to your bullshit, they can just say ethics is subjective and consistency doesn't matter so what fucking argument can you possibly make to convince us we should stop them from doing that? That you personally don't like it? Pretty weaksauce ain't it, but that's all you're left with since you're too big a cunt to admit you could in fact be acting unethically when you impose unnecessary suffering on animals so you have nothing left to say about anyone else's assholery without also condemning yourself, which you selfish douche bags refuse to do at all costs.

Meanwhile here in the logical world, we can understand that since welfare is the only thing that ultimately matters to us personally, and ethics is merely taking others into account, who also have that same feature, it is in fact inconsistent to claim that our personal welfare is meaningful while the welfare of other identical creatures is not, which is exactly what you fucknuts are doing when you say torturing a pig for a fucking ham sandwich is an ethically productive or at least neutral action, while you would not impose that same suffering on yourself to receive said sandwich.

In conclusion, you fucking suck.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:iwbiek

Manageri wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

and what is philosophy?  an artificial, arbitrary construct, a product of our psyches.  yet you continue to appeal to it and dog others for appealing to nature.  at least nature can be observed, unlike some metaphysical realm of philosophy.

It's basically just doing logic, silly person. Appealing to logic and appealing to "well monkeys throw shit at each other so I can too" are in no way the same thing, but since you deny we should rely on logic I can hardly provide any convincing logical support for why you are an idiot for doing so now can I?

Btw what do you think our observation of the nature you place on a pedestal is, if not a product of our psyches which you just shat on? But this isn't a problem for you of course (indeed nothing at all is), since you can just turn your "consistency doesn't matter" program on whenever it suits you.

Someone wants to rape kids? According to your bullshit, they can just say ethics is subjective and consistency doesn't matter so what fucking argument can you possibly make to convince us we should stop them from doing that? That you personally don't like it? Pretty weaksauce ain't it, but that's all you're left with since you're too big a cunt to admit you could in fact be acting unethically when you impose unnecessary suffering on animals so you have nothing left to say about anyone else's assholery without also condemning yourself, which you selfish douche bags refuse to do at all costs.

Meanwhile here in the logical world, we can understand that since welfare is the only thing that ultimately matters to us personally, and ethics is merely taking others into account, who also have that same feature, it is in fact inconsistent to claim that our personal welfare is meaningful while the welfare of other identical creatures is not, which is exactly what you fucknuts are doing when you say torturing a pig for a fucking ham sandwich is an ethically productive or at least neutral action, while you would not impose that same suffering on yourself to receive said sandwich.

In conclusion, you fucking suck.

Populations determine what is ethical for that particular population. It's not an individual thing (I suspect you know that and are just being obtuse) .You have yet to show that "Eating meat? Ick!" is a logical position.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Populations

jcgadfly wrote:

Populations determine what is ethical for that particular population. It's not an individual thing (I suspect you know that and are just being obtuse) .You have yet to show that "Eating meat? Ick!" is a logical position.

Well then since the population of certain regions at one time thought lynching blacks was just fine then you just agreed that was in fact ethical, congratulations. I look forward to your attempt to weasel your way out of that.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Populations determine what is ethical for that particular population. It's not an individual thing (I suspect you know that and are just being obtuse) .You have yet to show that "Eating meat? Ick!" is a logical position.

Well then since the population of certain regions at one time thought lynching blacks was just fine then you just agreed that was in fact ethical, congratulations. I look forward to your attempt to weasel your way out of that.

and since ethics are subjective and determined by populations, when the views of the population changed (through education and information)- the ethics changed. No weaseling required. Make it difficult next time.

Now, where's your logic that your position of "Meat is icky" is good for everyone?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: In

Manageri wrote:

 

In conclusion, you fucking suck.

and yet you continue to address me...

funny how your arguments are so logical and obvious, and yet not a single fucking person here accepts them.  i'm not appealing to popularity or anything, i'm just saying, if "torturing" animals is so obviously evil--like, sky-is-blue obvious--you'd think at least one of the many intelligent people on this site would say, "hey, manageri's ethical construct is obviously the only acceptable one."

so to sum up the argument so far:

me: "humans' needs--and yes, sometimes even wants--take precedence over those of animals."

you: "that's unethical!"

me: "universal ethics are a fairytale."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!"

me: "not in any universalist sense, no, but history shows it retards our species' development and survival, so the vast majority of people consider it undesirable."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!  you're a fuckin' asshole!  it's impossible to talk to you!"

me: "and yet you continue to address me..."

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Well then

Manageri wrote:

 

Well then since the population of certain regions at one time thought lynching blacks was just fine then you just agreed that was in fact ethical

no, he agreed that from their p.o.v., it was ethical.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:and since

jcgadfly wrote:

and since ethics are subjective and determined by populations, when the views of the population changed (through education and information)- the ethics changed. No weaseling required. Make it difficult next time.

So you believe that whatever the majority decides is ethical. That's good to know, we can stop all ethical discussion since whatever we come up with in a popularity poll is now ethical. If the majority of americans wanna round up the black folk and enslave them again it's tough shit for them.

Except that that's fucking retarded. Ethics no more changed because people realized slavery is unethical than the nature of our planet changed when people figured out it isn't flat, the only thing that changed was how closely people's understanding matched the respective physical and ethical truths. Real morality is and always has been about sentient welfare, it doesn't make any fucking sense to talk about what's good or bad (or right or wrong) for something without that something being able to be benefitted or hurt (or treated right or wrong). It follows that since slavery was a significant imposition of harm without a corresponding elimination of harm, it was unethical, and the opinion of the moronic masses does nothing to change that.

The fact that what exactly constitutes ethical treatment for each individual subject does not mean that we can't make the objective statement that it is better for said subject to be treated according to what is more beneficial to it. If I prefer chocolate milkshakes and you prefer strawberry ones, it does not mean that either kind is an objectively better choise FOR ALL, but it does mean we can say OBJECTIVELY that it is better for me to receive the chocolate and better for you to receive the strawberry milkshake. The only way your population opinion theory of ethics makes any fucking sense is in the context of when a population has to make a decision that affects them all, like if the whole country is forced to drink only one kind of milk shake, in which case the popular opinion will most likely decide the ethical course of action, but the real ethical questions we tend to face are not reducable to such a simplistic opinion poll answer since we understand that enslaving the black minority causes such harm to them that the benefit received by the white majority did not come fucking close to making up for it.

That is what objective morality actually means, not what the religious lunatics mistakenly present it as (just like they present young earth creationism as a science while we know what a fucking joke putting those words together is) - that some asshole in the sky says do X and therefore X is the ethical way to behave. The opinion of a god is no more intrinsically ethical than anyone else's opinion, instead its effect on the welfare of sentient organisms is what decides whether it's ethical.

Quote:
Now, where's your logic that your position of "Meat is icky" is good for everyone?

The exact same place where your logic on the position that it's wrong for someone to smash your face in with a baseball bat for no reason is wrong, regardless of who is doing the smashing.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:so to sum up

iwbiek wrote:
so to sum up the argument so far:

me: "humans' needs--and yes, sometimes even wants--take precedence over those of animals."

you: "that's unethical!"

me: "universal ethics are a fairytale."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!"

me: "not in any universalist sense, no, but history shows it retards our species' development and survival, so the vast majority of people consider it undesirable."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!  you're a fuckin' asshole!  it's impossible to talk to you!"

me: "and yet you continue to address me..."

What a fun game, here's my version:

iwbiek: I see nothing wrong with discriminating against animals

manageri: Racists see nothing wrong with discriminating against other races, how is your behaviour ethically different?

iwbiek: ethics is subjective

manageri: Whether it's subjective or not you're being inconsistent

iwbiek: lol philosophy just look at nature dude

manageri: you fucking suck

Quote:
funny how your arguments are so logical and obvious, and yet not a single fucking person here accepts them.  i'm not appealing to popularity or anything, i'm just saying, if "torturing" animals is so obviously evil--like, sky-is-blue obvious--you'd think at least one of the many intelligent people on this site would say, "hey, manageri's ethical construct is obviously the only acceptable one."

Appealing to popularity is exactly what you're doing regardless of the fact you claim you aren't. Why don't we see you go make a case for atheism on a fundie forum and check out how many people agree with you. Will you be the least bit less secure about your atheism just because those dickweeds would all say you're full of shit? Appealing to the supposed intelligence of atheists is also irrelevant unless you're gonna claim that when most people were fine with slavery the average IQ of the human race was significantly lower. If you took the dumbest 20% of people now and swapped them with the smartest 20% 200 years ago I'd bet my nutsack we'd find more racists in the geniuses of the past, but you'd hardly take that as evidence of the acceptability of racism.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure I would go so

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say I agree with Manageri's arguments. At any rate even if I found them compelling, I doubt I'd turn down a meal based on them. They are however, reasoned arguments and they are not addressed on their merits here.

What I see are appeals to subjectivity which in my mind are dismissive attempts to avoid addressing opposing claims or arguing for the truth of ones own beliefs.

Even if we would set aside that the idea morality is purely subjective is the basis of moral theories which are wholly impractical that prevent people from taking reasonable stances on most any issue, the fact is it doesn't advance your understanding of any ethical question. The end result is four pages of completely useless tripe.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Manageri wrote:Except that

Manageri wrote:

Except that that's fucking retarded. Ethics no more changed because people realized slavery is unethical than the nature of our planet changed when people figured out it isn't flat, the only thing that changed was how closely people's understanding matched the respective physical and ethical truths. Real morality is and always has been about sentient welfare, it doesn't make any fucking sense to talk about what's good or bad (or right or wrong) for something without that something being able to be benefitted or hurt (or treated right or wrong). It follows that since slavery was a significant imposition of harm without a corresponding elimination of harm, it was unethical, and the opinion of the moronic masses does nothing to change that.

Where exactly does this magical ethical Truth come from? Why should I worry about conforming to this single ethical Truth in my personal life? Are you saying that anyone who follows a different morality than you is following a "false" morality? Is there any rational reason for me to follow the "true" morality?  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

and since ethics are subjective and determined by populations, when the views of the population changed (through education and information)- the ethics changed. No weaseling required. Make it difficult next time.

So you believe that whatever the majority decides is ethical. That's good to know, we can stop all ethical discussion since whatever we come up with in a popularity poll is now ethical. If the majority of americans wanna round up the black folk and enslave them again it's tough shit for them.

Except that that's fucking retarded. Ethics no more changed because people realized slavery is unethical than the nature of our planet changed when people figured out it isn't flat, the only thing that changed was how closely people's understanding matched the respective physical and ethical truths. Real morality is and always has been about sentient welfare, it doesn't make any fucking sense to talk about what's good or bad (or right or wrong) for something without that something being able to be benefitted or hurt (or treated right or wrong). It follows that since slavery was a significant imposition of harm without a corresponding elimination of harm, it was unethical, and the opinion of the moronic masses does nothing to change that.

The fact that what exactly constitutes ethical treatment for each individual subject does not mean that we can't make the objective statement that it is better for said subject to be treated according to what is more beneficial to it. If I prefer chocolate milkshakes and you prefer strawberry ones, it does not mean that either kind is an objectively better choise FOR ALL, but it does mean we can say OBJECTIVELY that it is better for me to receive the chocolate and better for you to receive the strawberry milkshake. The only way your population opinion theory of ethics makes any fucking sense is in the context of when a population has to make a decision that affects them all, like if the whole country is forced to drink only one kind of milk shake, in which case the popular opinion will most likely decide the ethical course of action, but the real ethical questions we tend to face are not reducable to such a simplistic opinion poll answer since we understand that enslaving the black minority causes such harm to them that the benefit received by the white majority did not come fucking close to making up for it.

That is what objective morality actually means, not what the religious lunatics mistakenly present it as (just like they present young earth creationism as a science while we know what a fucking joke putting those words together is) - that some asshole in the sky says do X and therefore X is the ethical way to behave. The opinion of a god is no more intrinsically ethical than anyone else's opinion, instead its effect on the welfare of sentient organisms is what decides whether it's ethical.

Quote:
Now, where's your logic that your position of "Meat is icky" is good for everyone?

The exact same place where your logic on the position that it's wrong for someone to smash your face in with a baseball bat for no reason is wrong, regardless of who is doing the smashing.

What I believe is immaterial - that is what it is. You simply restated my position with a hell of a lot more words. Your problem is that you don't actually believe a word of it, do you?

If you did, you wouldn't be offering your "Meat is icky" idea as a universal truth.

I'd really like for you to make up your mind here - you start with saying that there is an objective morality but then say it is objective for each individual. That makes it subjective.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: so to sum up

iwbiek wrote:

so to sum up the argument so far:

me: "humans' needs--and yes, sometimes even wants--take precedence over those of animals."

you: "that's unethical!"

me: "universal ethics are a fairytale."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!"

me: "not in any universalist sense, no, but history shows it retards our species' development and survival, so the vast majority of people consider it undesirable."

you: "so that means there's nothing wrong with raping kids!  you're a fuckin' asshole!  it's impossible to talk to you!"

me: "and yet you continue to address me..."

Laughing out loud Words cannot express the awesome.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What I

jcgadfly wrote:

What I believe is immaterial - that is what it is. You simply restated my position with a hell of a lot more words. Your problem is that you don't actually believe a word of it, do you?

Well then if your position is the same as mine I expect you to give me the argument how imposing all that suffering on the animals produces a corresponding or greater elimination of suffering somewhere else.

Quote:
If you did, you wouldn't be offering your "Meat is icky" idea as a universal truth.

I'd really like for you to make up your mind here - you start with saying that there is an objective morality but then say it is objective for each individual. That makes it subjective.

No, you once again make the mistake of placing the value on the shit that produces welfare rather than the welfare itself. The thing with real value is not the milkshake that makes me happy, it's the happiness produced in my brain. What makes each brain happy is different, that's the subjective part, but the fact that each of those brains being happy rather than being sad is objectively true if the words like "better" are to mean anything. If you're gonna cling to your silly subjectivity then you should be able to explain in what situation is suffering better than pleasure, I look forward to seeing you try (or propably not since you're too scared to deal with anything I say directly). Oh and do realize that something like "well it's better to kick someone in the balls so they fall down rather than let them step on a landmine" is not such an example, you would merely be imposing a lesser amount of suffering to prevent a greater one, and thus the importance of welfare remains intact.

Apply this to factory farming honestly and you will see it's undeniable that large amounts of the valuable stuff, suffering, are being wasted for no corresponding or greater elimination of suffering. Your "meat is icky" is a disgustingly dishonest paraphrasing of the argument that implies I'm saying I don't personally like eating meat and therefore none of you should either, while the real argument goes that it doesn't fucking matter how much I personally enjoy it, you're still imposing suffering on the animals which, like any other imposition of harm, must be defended.

Now you really have only two options here as far as I can see. You can either reject the whole idea of welfare as the basis for ethics but it doesn't take a whole lotta thought to see why that's not gonna be consistent with what you actually believe, or you can man the fuck up and start addressing my challenges to your behaviour while remaining consistent.

But knowing you you'll take option C and deflect or ignore.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Where exactly does this magical ethical Truth come from? Why should I worry about conforming to this single ethical Truth in my personal life? Are you saying that anyone who follows a different morality than you is following a "false" morality? Is there any rational reason for me to follow the "true" morality?

You and I have talked about this more than once and nothing's changed since then. You've said (paraphrasing here, correct any possible bullshit) you really just don't give a shit about ethics so how am I supposed to provide an ethical argument for why you should? If someone doesn't care about evidence then I can hardly expect them to change that position with any evidence I could provide either, or make a logical argument explaining why someone should care about logic. You either care about being an ethical person or you don't, and you just don't. This is not the case with the people I'm arguing with here so it's irrelevant.

Is there a rational reason to be moral? Not intrinsically (and I've said this to you sooooo maaaaany tiiiiimes now), but this applies to ALL morality, not just the specific subject of how to treat animals, so unless someone also agrees there's no rational reason not to play football with babies if they can get away with it then this argument really doesn't go anywhere.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What I believe is immaterial - that is what it is. You simply restated my position with a hell of a lot more words. Your problem is that you don't actually believe a word of it, do you?

Well then if your position is the same as mine I expect you to give me the argument how imposing all that suffering on the animals produces a corresponding or greater elimination of suffering somewhere else.

Quote:
If you did, you wouldn't be offering your "Meat is icky" idea as a universal truth.

I'd really like for you to make up your mind here - you start with saying that there is an objective morality but then say it is objective for each individual. That makes it subjective.

No, you once again make the mistake of placing the value on the shit that produces welfare rather than the welfare itself. The thing with real value is not the milkshake that makes me happy, it's the happiness produced in my brain. What makes each brain happy is different, that's the subjective part, but the fact that each of those brains being happy rather than being sad is objectively true if the words like "better" are to mean anything. If you're gonna cling to your silly subjectivity then you should be able to explain in what situation is suffering better than pleasure, I look forward to seeing you try (or propably not since you're too scared to deal with anything I say directly). Oh and do realize that something like "well it's better to kick someone in the balls so they fall down rather than let them step on a landmine" is not such an example, you would merely be imposing a lesser amount of suffering to prevent a greater one, and thus the importance of welfare remains intact.

Apply this to factory farming honestly and you will see it's undeniable that large amounts of the valuable stuff, suffering, are being wasted for no corresponding or greater elimination of suffering. Your "meat is icky" is a disgustingly dishonest paraphrasing of the argument that implies I'm saying I don't personally like eating meat and therefore none of you should either, while the real argument goes that it doesn't fucking matter how much I personally enjoy it, you're still imposing suffering on the animals which, like any other imposition of harm, must be defended.

Now you really have only two options here as far as I can see. You can either reject the whole idea of welfare as the basis for ethics but it doesn't take a whole lotta thought to see why that's not gonna be consistent with what you actually believe, or you can man the fuck up and start addressing my challenges to your behaviour while remaining consistent.

But knowing you you'll take option C and deflect or ignore.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Where exactly does this magical ethical Truth come from? Why should I worry about conforming to this single ethical Truth in my personal life? Are you saying that anyone who follows a different morality than you is following a "false" morality? Is there any rational reason for me to follow the "true" morality?

You and I have talked about this more than once and nothing's changed since then. You've said (paraphrasing here, correct any possible bullshit) you really just don't give a shit about ethics so how am I supposed to provide an ethical argument for why you should? If someone doesn't care about evidence then I can hardly expect them to change that position with any evidence I could provide either, or make a logical argument explaining why someone should care about logic. You either care about being an ethical person or you don't, and you just don't. This is not the case with the people I'm arguing with here so it's irrelevant.

Is there a rational reason to be moral? Not intrinsically (and I've said this to you sooooo maaaaany tiiiiimes now), but this applies to ALL morality, not just the specific subject of how to treat animals, so unless someone also agrees there's no rational reason not to play football with babies if they can get away with it then this argument really doesn't go anywhere.

Why would I ignore you? You're hilarious.

I'm glad you finally got around to the root of your problem.

You don't like factory farms so you equate ant farms that have animals on them to factory farms. This fits with your "Meat is icky so none should eat it" policy. If you think it's a disgusting paraphrase then quit saying it.

You also don't like humans. See, if me kneeing someone in the nuts keeps him from immediately walking on a landmine that I know is there - I'm dropping him. You however, would lay the mine, knee someone in the nuts and throw him on the mine because you have to save a cow in Middle of fuck. India. Actually, Indian would be a good fit for you - the cows are revered and the people live in squalor. sounds like your kind of place.

You appear to place far more balue on suffering than I do because you're willing to let families die rather than letting them eat an animal that might stave that off (even if that was the express reason for raising said animal).

Meanwhile, you have no problem with spraying caustic products into the eyes of animals so that people can figure out not to do that to themselves. You have no problem with giving mice hundreds of time the level of cigarette smoke that humans would take in so they can figure out it's bad for them to smoke.

Hypocrisy, thy name is... sorry, I never actually cared enough to figure out what your name is.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you

Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you choose to argue my character rather than my arguments once again, while making preposterous strawmen along the way of course.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Aaaaaand

Manageri wrote:

Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you choose to argue my character rather than my arguments once again, while making preposterous strawmen along the way of course.

Unsurprisingly your posts reflect your character. Since you haven't given me anything even remotely close to evidence to support your position I don't have a lot to work with.

Now who's picking random logical fallacies? At least when you used a red herring I identified it correctly. You haven't shown me anything that indicates that I've strawmanned you.

Would you like to try again or do you choose to maintain your hypocrisy?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Manageri

jcgadfly wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you choose to argue my character rather than my arguments once again, while making preposterous strawmen along the way of course.

You haven't shown me anything that indicates that I've strawmanned you.

Ok, let's see...

jcgadfly wrote:
You don't like factory farms so you equate ant farms that have animals on them to factory farms. This fits with your "Meat is icky so none should eat it" policy. If you think it's a disgusting paraphrase then quit saying it.

Nowhere have I ever opined on the "ickyness" of meat. What I have talked about is the ickyness of torturing other sentient beings so you can have food that you don't need. I also haven't based anything on "I don't like it", I've made arguments explaining why it's unethical for the same reasons as the things I've compared it to, which you bitches are too scared to even try to unravel. Strawman #1.

Quote:
You also don't like humans.

Well this depends on what you mean by like. Humans are mostly disgusting idiotic assholes so in that sense I don't like them, but I don't need to like them to argue they deserve ethical treatment just like every other sentient being, and nowhere will you find me arguing otherwise but I guess I gotta give you a pass on this.

Quote:
See, if me kneeing someone in the nuts keeps him from immediately walking on a landmine that I know is there - I'm dropping him.

Yes, and if your magical fairy of subjectivity instead whispers in your ear that you should take a picture of him blowing up and rape his wife on his corpse with the picture taped to your forehead, well ethics is all subjective so that's all ok according to you since we can't possibly make judgements on that any more than we can judge your favorite color. What a great moral system you have.

Quote:
You however, would lay the mine, knee someone in the nuts and throw him on the mine because you have to save a cow in Middle of fuck. India. Actually, Indian would be a good fit for you - the cows are revered and the people live in squalor. sounds like your kind of place.

Nowhere have I argued the life of a cow is worth more than a human's, indeed I've spent very little (if any) time talking about the ethics of ending the lives of animals, I've been talking about their treatment all the way up to that point. Strawman #2

Quote:
You appear to place far more balue on suffering than I do because you're willing to let families die rather than letting them eat an animal that might stave that off (even if that was the express reason for raising said animal).

It's been blatantly obvious that we've been talking about people who are in fact not living in a shithole and have some choise in what they eat. Not once have I condemned eating an animal if that's what you need to do to survive. Strawman #3

Quote:
Meanwhile, you have no problem with spraying caustic products into the eyes of animals so that people can figure out not to do that to themselves.

Congratulations, you have just sunken to Vastet level idiocy. What I've actually said about this subject is that it's theoretically acceptable to test shit on animals if that imposition of harm can prevent more harm than it causes. I also said that it is just as acceptable with the same logic to do this experimentation on humans. It follows that if a certain kind of test is deemed too fucking trivial to be done on humans (such as many cosmetics tests) then you don't fucking do it on animals either unless it's somehow severely less of an imposition on them. If someone deems the risk of using an untested cosmetic product acceptable then that person should take that risk themselves rather than impose it on someone else. Strawman #4

Quote:
You have no problem with giving mice hundreds of time the level of cigarette smoke that humans would take in so they can figure out it's bad for them to smoke.

See above response. Strawman #5

As fun as this has (not really) been I propably won't be bothered to respond to your mush anymore unless you start actually responding to my arguments.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you choose to argue my character rather than my arguments once again, while making preposterous strawmen along the way of course.

You haven't shown me anything that indicates that I've strawmanned you.

Ok, let's see...

jcgadfly wrote:
You don't like factory farms so you equate ant farms that have animals on them to factory farms. This fits with your "Meat is icky so none should eat it" policy. If you think it's a disgusting paraphrase then quit saying it.

Nowhere have I ever opined on the "ickyness" of meat. What I have talked about is the ickyness of torturing other sentient beings so you can have food that you don't need. I also haven't based anything on "I don't like it", I've made arguments explaining why it's unethical for the same reasons as the things I've compared it to, which you bitches are too scared to even try to unravel. Strawman #1.

Quote:
You also don't like humans.

Well this depends on what you mean by like. Humans are mostly disgusting idiotic assholes so in that sense I don't like them, but I don't need to like them to argue they deserve ethical treatment just like every other sentient being, and nowhere will you find me arguing otherwise but I guess I gotta give you a pass on this.

Quote:
See, if me kneeing someone in the nuts keeps him from immediately walking on a landmine that I know is there - I'm dropping him.

Yes, and if your magical fairy of subjectivity instead whispers in your ear that you should take a picture of him blowing up and rape his wife on his corpse with the picture taped to your forehead, well ethics is all subjective so that's all ok according to you since we can't possibly make judgements on that any more than we can judge your favorite color. What a great moral system you have.

Quote:
You however, would lay the mine, knee someone in the nuts and throw him on the mine because you have to save a cow in Middle of fuck. India. Actually, Indian would be a good fit for you - the cows are revered and the people live in squalor. sounds like your kind of place.

Nowhere have I argued the life of a cow is worth more than a human's, indeed I've spent very little (if any) time talking about the ethics of ending the lives of animals, I've been talking about their treatment all the way up to that point. Strawman #2

Quote:
You appear to place far more balue on suffering than I do because you're willing to let families die rather than letting them eat an animal that might stave that off (even if that was the express reason for raising said animal).

It's been blatantly obvious that we've been talking about people who are in fact not living in a shithole and have some choise in what they eat. Not once have I condemned eating an animal if that's what you need to do to survive. Strawman #3

Quote:
Meanwhile, you have no problem with spraying caustic products into the eyes of animals so that people can figure out not to do that to themselves.

Congratulations, you have just sunken to Vastet level idiocy. What I've actually said about this subject is that it's theoretically acceptable to test shit on animals if that imposition of harm can prevent more harm than it causes. I also said that it is just as acceptable with the same logic to do this experimentation on humans. It follows that if a certain kind of test is deemed too fucking trivial to be done on humans (such as many cosmetics tests) then you don't fucking do it on animals either unless it's somehow severely less of an imposition on them. If someone deems the risk of using an untested cosmetic product acceptable then that person should take that risk themselves rather than impose it on someone else. Strawman #4

Quote:
You have no problem with giving mice hundreds of time the level of cigarette smoke that humans would take in so they can figure out it's bad for them to smoke.

See above response. Strawman #5

As fun as this has (not really) been I propably won't be bothered to respond to your mush anymore unless you start actually responding to my arguments.

You haven't given me an argument to respond to so I guess we won't be dealing with each other anymore. All you've done is hyperbole based on your desire to make your personal preference a universal maxim..

Your loss.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Aaaaaand

Manageri wrote:

Aaaaaand unsurprisingly you choose to argue my character rather than my arguments once again, while making preposterous strawmen along the way of course.

Lol, your arguments have all been nuked multiple times over. Your character, that of an uneducated hypocrite suffering from cognitive dissonence, is all that remains to be discussed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
More on cooking

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/22/cooking-supports-increased-human-brain-power

If human beings had not invented cooking as a way of increasing the number of calories they consumed, they could only have supported the 86bn neurons in their big brains by spending an impossible nine hours or more each day eating raw food, according to a scientific paper published on Monday.

The research, the authors suggest, explains why great apes such as gorillas, which can have bodies three times the size of humans, have considerably smaller brains. Though gorillas typically spend up to eight hours feeding, their diet influenced an evolutionary tradeoff between body and brain size; supporting both big bodies and big brains would be impossible on a raw food diet.

The paper builds on the earlier research by Richard Wrangham, a British primatologist, now professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, who suggested the invention of cooking was a crucial point in human evolution.

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Or between slave and industrial cultures. Or peasant and nobility cultures.

   ...or between the values of vegan fanatics and human omnivores per the OP.   

So, your point in correcting me is that I should be on the look out for some type of bloody "Arab Spring" to be waged by militant vegans ?  If not, try using context when attempting to decipher the use of such complicated terms as "culture wars"instead of going off on needless tangents.

  Enlighten yourself:  www.culture-war.info

I had no intention of diverting the discussion. I assumed that the  intro of culture wars had done that. I am such an ill-informed person I do NOT consider veggies to be a culture. I did not make that connection. Veggies are a cult that has been around in some form or other as far back as there are written records. 3rd millenia BC Egypt. Maybe the folks from India traveled to Egypt to get the idea. (not serious) Rather than culture consider it a fetish and it makes more sense. A Mr. Monk concerned about what he eats. It is a neurotic preoccupation with imagined properties of diet supported by equally neurotic researchers discovering their preconceived conclusions.

Pardon if I missed the idea that veggies were a culture. But if it should come to war they can't get enough calories from non-meats to put up a decent fight. Read harmless. The worst they will do is poison us by feeding us red meat. And should they obtain absolute power they will execute us with shampoo testing.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Manageri wrote:
Bringing philosophy into this? What the fuck do you think ethics is if not a branch of philosophy?

You really are too fucking silly to have a discussion with about anything meaningful

Ethics like philosophy is always after the fact and has no predictive ability. As we have been eating meat for all time and only a handful of food fetishists, aka neurotics, have had a problem over the years we know there is no objective merit to applying ethics to eating habits. Only if food animals rebel is there potentially something of interest in the application of ethics. HOWEVER, it will be ethics based upon rebellion as it has no predictive value.

Like medical ethics, after Do No Harm it all gets murky as in Do No Good Unless Paid when the cost is more than a band-aid.

Did I tell you I am starting a line of breat-milk cheeses?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

and since ethics are subjective and determined by populations, when the views of the population changed (through education and information)- the ethics changed. No weaseling required. Make it difficult next time.

So you believe that whatever the majority decides is ethical. That's good to know, we can stop all ethical discussion since whatever we come up with in a popularity poll is now ethical. If the majority of americans wanna round up the black folk and enslave them again it's tough shit for them.

That is not ethics. That is economics. It is cheaper to have them free in an industrial society. Industrialization ended slavery not ethics. Some form of slavery has been around since writing was invented and presumably long before that.

If slavery were unethical then the greatest ethical and religious thinkers missed it for at least 6000 - 250 years. If ethics is universal and absolute why would you hang your hat on this 250 year deviation from the norm of human society? 

 

What you are really up against is modern society and science making it possible for adults to survive on a veggie diet. The most important contribution is being able to NOT eat food when available and survive. For most of human history all but the rich had to eat everything that came their way or likely not live long enough to spread veggie nonsense. Also the science of nutrition being able to discriminate between deadly and survivable fetish diets. And production of vitamins in pills is critical.

There is nothing ethical about having to eat everything to lessen chronic malnutrition. There is nothing unethical about slavery. There is only uneconomical in today's world. It would be amusing to see a veggie try to survive on only the foods available in season no more than a day away by horse draw wagon. And that would require NO medical treatment for malnutrition induced illnesses and diseases.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Gauche wrote:

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say I agree with Manageri's arguments. At any rate even if I found them compelling, I doubt I'd turn down a meal based on them. They are however, reasoned arguments and they are not addressed on their merits here.

Apologies. I guess I missed the arguments. I did read a lot of statements about torturing animals and slavery but I do not remember any arguments. Perhaps you could refresh my memory on a few of them. Without knowing what the arguments were I cannot address their merits if any.

Quote:
What I see are appeals to subjectivity which in my mind are dismissive attempts to avoid addressing opposing claims or arguing for the truth of ones own beliefs.

Meat tastes good. Perhaps to some it does not. What more opposing claim do you need? There is no need to argue it tastes good. Simply try and see for yourself.

Quote:
Even if we would set aside that the idea morality is purely subjective is the basis of moral theories which are wholly impractical that prevent people from taking reasonable stances on most any issue, the fact is it doesn't advance your understanding of any ethical question. The end result is four pages of completely useless tripe.

I never found a taste for tripe and some of my friends refuse to eat Trief.

So what are the ethics? Torturing animals? Since when are animals part of ethics? Must you treat a pet as a human? Then they cannot be pets. QED They are prey animals. That is what evolution made them. But there is no ethics here. They taste good. Next question.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious about something

I am curious about these arguments about subjective/objective morality. I know I agree with some of Sam Harris's arguments, but at the same time, I do believe in some subjective morality. I am a biker, I am not liked by a lot of mainstream society. My choice.

But, I really can't defend raping a girl, molesting a child, or doing some inhumane things.

Here's my dilemma, my culture is filled with wild drunkeness, scantily child girls, and well you get the idea.

Christian/Muslims would call my world immoral.

But, I can't say that I could defend rapists ( I know Manageri likes that analogy) ,molestors and people that cause harm. I would fight against an immoral act like rape, like wiping out the rapist. If I came home from work and found some gang raping my girl, I'll die fighting them. But if murder is immoral, I guess I would commit the immoral act.

I believe in cultural relativity, but there again, I hate what people do to women in Iran. So, that must mean I believe in some sort of objective standard.

So, I just would like to know what are morals ? I don't know where I stand on this and would like to know.

EDIT: In other words, I don't know if I believe in subjective/objective morality. I am really confused on this.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Not really

One of the things that most Moral Objectivists so often fail to understand, and Manageri also seems to fall into this trap, is that just because you accept that Moral Systems are subjective and culturally defined and transmitted, it doesn't mean that any time someone argues with you, or presents a different system, that you have to automatically throw up your arms and concede that both are equally valid.

This is true of other Subjective Things as well.  Take Movies, or other works of Fiction, or especially Art.  With the exception of the usage of Literary/Cinematic Techniques, and you could argue even then, you cannot really debate the quality of a work of fiction on an objective standard.  That doesn't mean you cannot argue that Birdemic is a terrible movie, it also doesn't mean that you cannot argue that it is so horrendously terrible as to be awesomely brilliant, and it doesn't mean you cannot legitimately enjoy it, even if just for its honesty.

Really, when a Moral Objectivist starts spouting their slippery slope "If Morals are subjective than Rape is Okay" bullshit, it just amounts to them trying, desperately and hopefully futilely, to stop discussion entirely.  It is a non-starter and really amounts to litle more than intellectual cowardice.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote: I am

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 I am such an ill-informed person I do NOT consider veggies to be a culture.

 

  Doesn't matter what you consider.  You may not consider outlaw bikers as having their own culture.  So what ?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I did not make that connection.

 

 Wouldn't be the first time.

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 I am such an ill-informed person I do NOT consider veggies to be a culture.

  Doesn't matter what you consider.  You may not consider outlaw bikers as having their own culture.  So what ?

I know it is fun for journalism majors and other ill educated types to declare a "culture" without defining what makes a distinct culture. They also mix the idea of ancient Egyptian culture with things as nebulous as a "culture" of weaing green.

The only defined meaning of culture is a separate and unique system that addresses all human social needs. In other words if it does not provide defense from without and justice within it is not even in the running for being considered a culture.

Bikers and drug dealers and the Mafia are what we call sub-cultures in that only a few of the aspects of a culture are different. The more different the more important the "sub" so until bikers home-school on biker history they are not even in the running for  significantly different.

Just to be clear about it, bikers are street gangs with bikes. Most who claim to be bikers aren't, more like college fraternies.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 I am such an ill-informed person I do NOT consider veggies to be a culture.

  Doesn't matter what you consider.  You may not consider outlaw bikers as having their own culture.  So what ?

I know it is fun for journalism majors and other ill educated types to declare a "culture" without defining what makes a distinct culture. They also mix the idea of ancient Egyptian culture with things as nebulous as a "culture" of weaing green.

The only defined meaning of culture is a separate and unique system that addresses all human social needs. In other words if it does not provide defense from without and justice within it is not even in the running for being considered a culture.

Bikers and drug dealers and the Mafia are what we call sub-cultures in that only a few of the aspects of a culture are different. The more different the more important the "sub" so until bikers home-school on biker history they are not even in the running for  significantly different.

Just to be clear about it, bikers are street gangs with bikes. Most who claim to be bikers aren't, more like college fraternies.

 

   Well I'm sure that when you graduated from college in the 1920's such a restricted definition may have been in effect.  I doubt it.  Actually you seem to tweak terms to suit your arguments.  You've done it before on this forum.  Let me bring up to date old man.

  Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Culture.

b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or SOCIAL GROUP; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence ( as diversions or  way of life ) shared by people or time < popular culture > < southern culture >

c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, an d practices that characterizes an institution or organization < a corporate culture focused on the bottom line >

d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristics < studying the effect of computers on print culture> < changing the culture of materialism will take time --Peggy O'Mara>

 

  You are representative of a culture of geriatric blow hards who seem to believe their knowledge base is authoritative, final and above scrutiny.

 

 

  

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:In

harleysportster wrote:
In other words, I don't know if I believe in subjective/objective morality. I am really confused on this.

I don't think it's really one or the other. There are degrees of subjectivity in human endeavors. If someone said you had a psychological disorder you wouldn't reply "Where was it ever etched in granite what psychological order is? There's no control group, etc ..." Or, maybe you would and perhaps there's even some validity to that but it doesn't address your problem, the same way you have to think there is a moral issue at stake to have a discussion about it. Otherwise, you'd have nothing more to contribute than a blanket objection to moral pronouncements that it's a purely subjective matter, which even if true would be an irrelevant observation because lack of objective value isn't a reason to abandon subjective concern.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft