Hastur wrote:You have no idea what my position is because you never bothered to ask. To you, I'm just some meaningless person who is to be coerced into some universal all-encompassing "ethics" that you dreamed up in your dorm room.
I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to coerce me. You can go on and live your life as you choose. I don't see any harm in it. But you don't get to force me into following your unnatural diet.
You don't see harm in the vegan lifestyle, that's good, unfortunately the vegan point of view by its nature sees harm in animal slaughter, so it's not a live and let live philosophy, as I keep saying.
You may feel that by arguing with me you're being threatened with coercion, but the fact is a law prohibiting murder is coercive in the exact same way that a hypothetical law prohibiting animal slaughter would be coercive. You are happy to coerce your fellow citizens into respecting the rights of human people. In the same way I would welcome legislation coercing humans to not harm animals. So you are wrong to say you can't be forced to not harm animals, such a law would be perfectly constitutional.
Is it ethical for a human to own a dog? Or a cow? If so, is it ethical to castrate either of them?
Postby Hanarchy Montanarchy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:03 am
JohnDonne wrote:
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
JohnDonne wrote:
What we’re digging around is really the root of ethics itself, which could be interpreted as an appeal to nature. I see it more as an ethical appeal to ethics, that tautology again. But my saving grace is I’m merely applying the rules as I observe them and bringing them to their conclusion. I am not arguing that ethics as a self perpetuating abstract concept makes abstract sense and is the way to go, just that if you want to be ethical, here’s what is consistent. If you decide consistency doesn’t matter then you admit it’s all a game and we may dispense with the pretext of moralizing about this or that, for if ethics doesn’t matter, then what does and join what basis?
The premium you place on consistency is what I was arguing against. I am arguing that it is unethical to treat humans and animals consistently. In, fact, I would argue that it is unethical to even sacrifice an iota of human pleasure for the sake of a chicken or cow.
I am consistently humanist, and a hedonist.
You may be a humanist, but you fail to outline what makes your standard different than bigotry.
For if consciousness takes a complete back seat to the ethical primacy of species, why not to race and skin color? In rigging the game to turn up human you validate the arbitrary means by which you rig it, and thus jeopardize the foundations of why we value any sentient life.
Exactly. I am bigoted in favor of humans. I believe this to be an ethical form of bigotry. It does not follow that all forms of bigotry are ethical.
This isn't arbitrary, in the sense that it is whimsical, random, or irrational. I view the difference between humans and other animals as being as obvious as the difference between animals and plants, and place the burden of proof on those who want me to believe there is no difference.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Okeefenokee wrote:You're mixing subjectivity with morality.
It's not like I didn't call it the second I saw you say, "ethically."
There's no way for you determine when a fetus is sentient any more than you prove a lobster wants to live.
I'm not mixing anything, a subjective viewpoint is where value comes from, else you are but as a rock, a non-person.
So even after I addressed your point before you made it, you still use the tired argument that abortion can never be justified because we can never be sure when sentience begins. I pointed out to you that we don't need to know when abortion begins, because we can be quite certain where it doesn't exist, it's where causal structures are not present. Yet you made the argument anyway.
This is why alarms need to go off any time someone starts talking about ethics.
Ethics are subjective, and always find a way to excuse whatever horrific shit the individual wants to excuse.
Gas pumper here can invent whatever rationale he needs to defend what he does, and condemn you. If the arguments fall through, the judgement never changes. Instead he just invents new rationales.
Watch and see.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Veganism, Clinical Findings and Investigations,
FREY R. ELLIS, M.D., M.R.C. PATH. V. M. E. MONTEGRIFFO, MB., B.S.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 23, Issue 3, 1 March 1970,
Clinical examinations and ancillary investigations were carried out on 26 vegans and 21 control omnivores.
1) The vegans were found to be lighter in weight than the omnivores.
2) There was no significant difference in the clinical states of the vegans and omnivores.
3) The mean serum B12 level was lower in the vegans (236 pg/ml) than in the controls (441 pg/ml).
4) The mean serum folate level was higher for vegans (14.1 ng/ml) than for the controls (5.2 ng/ml).
5) The mean plasma urea levels were within normal limits but 7 of 22 controls had urea levels of 40 mg/100 ml or over as compared to 2 of the 26 vegans.
6) The mean male vegan serum cholesterol was lower (181 mg/l00 ml) than that of the mean male control level (240 mg/100 ml), but there was no difference between the female mean levels.
7) Six vegans had serum bilirubins of more than 0.8 as compared with one control.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Veganism, Clinical Findings and Investigations,
FREY R. ELLIS, M.D., M.R.C. PATH. V. M. E. MONTEGRIFFO, MB., B.S.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 23, Issue 3, 1 March 1970,
Clinical examinations and ancillary investigations were carried out on 26 vegans and 21 control omnivores.
1) The vegans were found to be lighter in weight than the omnivores.
2) There was no significant difference in the clinical states of the vegans and omnivores.
3) The mean serum B12 level was lower in the vegans (236 pg/ml) than in the controls (441 pg/ml).
4) The mean serum folate level was higher for vegans (14.1 ng/ml) than for the controls (5.2 ng/ml).
5) The mean plasma urea levels were within normal limits but 7 of 22 controls had urea levels of 40 mg/100 ml or over as compared to 2 of the 26 vegans.
6) The mean male vegan serum cholesterol was lower (181 mg/l00 ml) than that of the mean male control level (240 mg/100 ml), but there was no difference between the female mean levels.
7) Six vegans had serum bilirubins of more than 0.8 as compared with one control.
I can speak on those findings:
1) Lower carbs
2) -
3) Bad for vegans
4) As long as the kidneys are okay, so what?
5) Meaningless unless pregnant.
6) Means nothing unless high BP.
7) Bad for vegans.
When did this thread turn into vegan conversion therapy?
Vegetarians and pescatarians are lovely people, while maybe not crazy about you eating your steak, mostly maintain a live and let live attitude. Vegans are annoying as fuck, demanding that humans go against their natural eating habits.
I'm a big proponent of treating our feed ethically, mostly by letting them be themselves while we wait for them to be food. The way we treat some animals is pretty terrible. Not a good enough reason to stop eating a healthy diet.
The tasty solution to B12 deficiencies for vegans. Unless yeast is conscious of course.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:05 am
Veganism is a very difficult diet to accomplish safely long term and, even then, it's only suitable for a subset of the population. There are lots of people that would face serious health risks for switching to such a diet.
Whole foods diet is the way to go in general.
For targeted goals, you can use something like keto, carb-cycling, intermittent fasting, etc., but you really don't even need to get that fancy if you are already not overweight or looking to build a lot of muscle quickly.
Stop eating sugar. Drink alcohol in moderation. Eat whole foods (food that comes from the produce, meat, and dairy sections).
