Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[TheReal_ND]

[SuburbanFarmer]

The other posters like c-mag, grumpy, and STA, are all ignoring the moral arguments I've made and are propagating at best dubious information, for example, that it's too expensive and impractical for most people to be vegan, that you can't be healthy as a vegan, that the earth could not support everyone being vegan, none of this comes with any evidence and I guarantee there are more cherries to pick on my side of the argument from better sources. But that is the most tedious aspect of arguing about veganism and it's been done to death, I would like to spare the readers and myself.

C-mag's argument about humans and hunting being a part of nature is the appeal to nature fallacy. Grumpy claiming that meat is a necessity to the human body and that being vegan is "arguing with nature" is the same fallacy except based on the unproven and much refuted premise that the human body needs meat.

We are talking about ethics here, not what is most natural, not which diet is "the healthiest," not fads, but ethics.

Ok, if we must debate entirely on feelz, then what’s the next step in this ideology? Putting a stop to predation in the wild?

Things kill things to survive. That is the nature of life. Competition and consumption.

The fact that we’re incredibly good at killing for food is not a bad thing. And the potential damage from our industrial monocropping is at least as bad as that from meat.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Nutritional information in favor of veganism is in the majority I believe. But like you I feel no inclination to engage in a cherry-picking competition as most nutritional arguments seem to devolve into. I will say I view the plethora of healthy vegan examples out there as living proof that veganism supports healthy human life. I assume myself and other vegans are not physical as well as ideological anomalies, we are of the same biology and genes as our meat eating brethren with varying levels of success. We do not expect from others what we do not expect from ourselves. We ask for scientific proof that meat is a requirement for humanity from those that make the claim. I'd also wonder if the occasional anemic or vaguely sick person is not too great a price to pay for society to wash its hands of innocent blood. And perhaps there are work arounds, the meat from dead deer found on the road could be ethically procured for these carnivorous health anomalies. Though I guess the point will be moot in a few years when in vitro meat hits the shelves.

This brings us pretty cleanly around to the initial moral conflict of the discussion.

While, theoretically, veganism promises to expand moral consideration to all conscious creatures, practically, it often only seems to reduce moral consideration for humans.

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple. Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

Or, if you believe you require animal protein for health reasons, we aren't heartless, we value life. Get a doctor's note and we can ration you some possum meet we scraped off the interstate.

Veganism only seems like it is even possibly ethical where there are no conflicts between human and animal wellness. Perhaps there will be technological advancements or medical discoveries that make that world a reality (I really don't think we are quite there yet), but until then, absolute moral equivalence of all consciousness is always a bit of an own goal, ethics-wise.

Your argument about an ethical veganism requiring absolutely no conflicts between "animal and human wellness" would seem to suggest that veganism is the better choice, since meat eating conflicts with animal wellness vastly more than veganism supposedly would conflict with human wellness. From an ethical point of view and judging by that standard, veganism is the more ethical option.

You seem to paint veganism as an unreasonable, radical ideology, but it's just the opposite, veganism is radical only in that it diverges from a radical status quo.

Possibly ethical. Even if that were the case, my concerns about the practical effects of dedicating yourself to a moral equivalence between humans and other animals would remain. But, theoretically, if there is no conflict, veganism stops being unethical, and is simply an amoral dietary choice, like any other dietary choice.
Even then, I would also be deeply concerned about giving over the production of protein to a patented technology, creating a private monopoly on a healthy, balanced diet.
It looks like creating a lot of problems in order to fix something that isn't exactly broken about the fundamentally amoral reality of hominid omnivorousness.

[JohnDonne]

The other posters like c-mag, grumpy, and STA, are all ignoring the moral arguments I've made and are propagating at best dubious information, for example, that it's too expensive and impractical for most people to be vegan, that you can't be healthy as a vegan, that the earth could not support everyone being vegan, none of this comes with any evidence and I guarantee there are more cherries to pick on my side of the argument from better sources. But that is the most tedious aspect of arguing about veganism and it's been done to death, I would like to spare the readers and myself.

C-mag's argument about humans and hunting being a part of nature is the appeal to nature fallacy. Grumpy claiming that meat is a necessity to the human body and that being vegan is "arguing with nature" is the same fallacy except based on the unproven and much refuted premise that the human body needs meat.

We are talking about ethics here, not what is most natural, not which diet is "the healthiest," not fads, but ethics.

Ok, if we must debate entirely on feelz, then what’s the next step in this ideology? Putting a stop to predation in the wild?

Things kill things to survive. That is the nature of life. Competition and consumption.

The fact that we’re incredibly good at killing for food is not a bad thing. And the potential damage from our industrial monocropping is at least as bad as that from meat.

I never argued predation in the wild was unethical, I never even argued that human society eating meat is by itself unethical, but human society eating meat when it has advanced sufficiently that eating meat is unnecessary is unethical.

Again, you are not addressing the ethics, you are repeating the argument from nature fallacy, over and over again whenever you generalize that "things kill things."

[TheReal_ND]

Former refugee activist speaks out



Rebecca Sommer

Original:
https://euroislam.pl/wywiad-z-rebecca-s ... aktywacja/

English:
https://vladtepesblog.com/2018/02/07/th ... man-whore/

I believed that people who come here are real refugees, happy that they will be safe and that they will show a good faith in order to adapt here and to integrate. But with time, an unpleasant awakening came about step by step. The reasons for this were so complex that I just couldn’t ignore it anymore. I believed that these medieval views would change over time. I placed great trust in our libertarian, equitable European values, and I naively thought that every person must delight in them.

I had to admit to myself that when it comes to Muslim refugees, they have grown up with completely different values, into which they have been brainwashed and are indoctrinated by Islam, and have no intention of adopting our values — worse, they look at us, unbelievers with superiority and arrogance.

The sexual molesting of volunteers happens all the time, but none of us has ever reported such a case to the police because none of us wanted to be seen as an opponent of refugees. A woman has no human value, she is perceived as a sexual object and not as a partner

...advice to Poland

Stay relentless in your resistance against the EU breaking the rights of individual nations – in this case against the relocation of refugees forced from outside. Every country and nation has the right to choose their guests. No country should have to give up the right to self-determination. People within their country have the right to rule themselves, without interference from outside. You have the right to determine your own political path and status, and be free from outside pressure. Do not lose your identity, no nation, group, ethnic group, be it Italians, French or Poles, will survive if you don’t isolate yourself in a sensible way, in accordance with your interests.

[JohnDonne]

This brings us pretty cleanly around to the initial moral conflict of the discussion.

While, theoretically, veganism promises to expand moral consideration to all conscious creatures, practically, it often only seems to reduce moral consideration for humans.

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple. Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

Or, if you believe you require animal protein for health reasons, we aren't heartless, we value life. Get a doctor's note and we can ration you some possum meet we scraped off the interstate.

Veganism only seems like it is even possibly ethical where there are no conflicts between human and animal wellness. Perhaps there will be technological advancements or medical discoveries that make that world a reality (I really don't think we are quite there yet), but until then, absolute moral equivalence of all consciousness is always a bit of an own goal, ethics-wise.

Your argument about an ethical veganism requiring absolutely no conflicts between "animal and human wellness" would seem to suggest that veganism is the better choice, since meat eating conflicts with animal wellness vastly more than veganism supposedly would conflict with human wellness. From an ethical point of view and judging by that standard, veganism is the more ethical option.

You seem to paint veganism as an unreasonable, radical ideology, but it's just the opposite, veganism is radical only in that it diverges from a radical status quo.

Possibly ethical. Even if that were the case, my concerns about the practical effects of dedicating yourself to a moral equivalence between humans and other animals would remain. But, theoretically, if there is no conflict, veganism stops being unethical, and is simply an amoral dietary choice, like any other dietary choice.
Even then, I would also be deeply concerned about giving over the production of protein to a patented technology, creating a private monopoly on a healthy, balanced diet.
It looks like creating a lot of problems in order to fix something that isn't exactly broken about the fundamentally amoral reality of hominid omnivorousness.

To be amoral is a necessity of survival, but without the need for survival the amoral become unethical.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The other posters like c-mag, grumpy, and STA, are all ignoring the moral arguments I've made and are propagating at best dubious information, for example, that it's too expensive and impractical for most people to be vegan, that you can't be healthy as a vegan, that the earth could not support everyone being vegan, none of this comes with any evidence and I guarantee there are more cherries to pick on my side of the argument from better sources. But that is the most tedious aspect of arguing about veganism and it's been done to death, I would like to spare the readers and myself.

C-mag's argument about humans and hunting being a part of nature is the appeal to nature fallacy. Grumpy claiming that meat is a necessity to the human body and that being vegan is "arguing with nature" is the same fallacy except based on the unproven and much refuted premise that the human body needs meat.

We are talking about ethics here, not what is most natural, not which diet is "the healthiest," not fads, but ethics.

Ok, if we must debate entirely on feelz, then what’s the next step in this ideology? Putting a stop to predation in the wild?

Things kill things to survive. That is the nature of life. Competition and consumption.

The fact that we’re incredibly good at killing for food is not a bad thing. And the potential damage from our industrial monocropping is at least as bad as that from meat.

I never argued predation in the wild was unethical, I never even argued that human society eating meat is by itself unethical, but human society eating meat when it has advanced sufficiently that eating meat is unnecessary is unethical.

Again, you are not addressing the ethics, you are repeating the argument from nature fallacy, over and over again whenever you generalize that "things kill things."

I could offer all sorts of reasons that the “unethical” behavior of eating meat is not unethical, but you seem to want me to prove that it’s actually more ethical.

Well, given that the survival of your family and species are the top priority (ethically), restricting their food options to a single source is in fact unethical.

The world will not always be as it is now. Life will not always be so secure and easy. And when the next civilizational swing occurs, you want those around you to be best adapted for survival. The best chance for that is as widely varied a diet as possible, along with the personal skills to procure nutrition in any way possible.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Your argument about an ethical veganism requiring absolutely no conflicts between "animal and human wellness" would seem to suggest that veganism is the better choice, since meat eating conflicts with animal wellness vastly more than veganism supposedly would conflict with human wellness. From an ethical point of view and judging by that standard, veganism is the more ethical option.

You seem to paint veganism as an unreasonable, radical ideology, but it's just the opposite, veganism is radical only in that it diverges from a radical status quo.

Possibly ethical. Even if that were the case, my concerns about the practical effects of dedicating yourself to a moral equivalence between humans and other animals would remain. But, theoretically, if there is no conflict, veganism stops being unethical, and is simply an amoral dietary choice, like any other dietary choice.
Even then, I would also be deeply concerned about giving over the production of protein to a patented technology, creating a private monopoly on a healthy, balanced diet.
It looks like creating a lot of problems in order to fix something that isn't exactly broken about the fundamentally amoral reality of hominid omnivorousness.

To be amoral is a necessity of survival, but without the need for survival the amoral become unethical.

That is just the naturalist fallacy in the other direction. If you are going to attach an ethical dimension to survival, be consistent. If it is unethical to predate if it isn't strictly needed for survival, then it is ethical if it is needed.
I think it is better to remove the ethical consideration from predation entirely.

[Speaker to Animals]

We don't feed the gorillas what we feed lions, or the lions what we feed giraffes. Homo sapiens are animals too. We have a particular diet with particular nutritional requirements. Veganism is *not* a natural diet. It's not that you can't make it work (with a lot of effort, planning, and resources), but that most people can't do this effectively, and it's not economically viable at scale.

If you want to do do this in your own life, more power to you. I suggest you get routine bloodwork on the regular, because you are likely to fuck your body up somehow if you don't understand the problems with it.

[TheReal_ND]

Girl murdered by immigrant for breaking up with him. This happened on Friday 9th of February.