Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Odinson

  1. You’re obviously digging your heels in and being purposefully obtuse, but for your benefit, I’ll explain it again. The examples were used to highlight the inherent contradiction when claiming moral relativism in regards to animal exploitation. Thus: “Racism is a personal choice” - We reject that position. “Sexism is a personal choice” - We reject that position. “Homophobia is a personal choice” - We reject that position. We don’t when it comes to animal exploitation. However, we should, because it is premised on the same flawed rationalisation as the above. It’s premised on the same arbitrary logic - take one characteristic of a group and use it as justification to exploit, be it race, religion or on this case species.
  2. Comparing social justice movements. Pretty obvious once you check your ego at the door.
  3. Let’s be glad that the anti-Apartheid activists, Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragettes, etc. didn’t share this opinion. ✌????
  4. This too from Grillo: “Another misguided belief goes back to my earlier point about the denial of the animal as victim as well as the human as perpetrator. And it all too often leads us to the erroneous conclusion that eating animal products is a morally- neutral act, a personal choice, or some other variation on this theme. There is a hidden judgment in the statement, “Don’t judge.” If you claim that people should not be judged for eating animal products, then you also are making the judgment that an animal’s entire lifetime of experiences is worth even less than satisfying some trivial, momentary taste sensation. Such a judgment stems from an entrenched prejudice against a handful of species that we just so happen to want to exploit and kill for food. Once we become aware of this prejudice — and the ensuing injustice perpetrated against its victims — there is no personal, neutral or morally-relative position on eating animal products that we have no biological need to eat. If animals matter even in the most superfluous sense, then we don’t violate their most basic right to life and liberty when we can so easily avoid it, such as in the case of veganism, where we can replace animal products with kinder and more nutritious alternatives.”
  5. This. This is what I've been trying to put in words these past few pages: “When the victim under consideration is a non-human animal — a member of another species — then suddenly the issue of slavery or exploitation becomes a matter of “opinion.” That is to say, our culture supports the unquestioned belief that human slavery and oppression is wrong based at least on the principle of justice for all, whereas animal slavery and oppression is simply a matter of opinion. It’s morally relative. And therein lies the problem. Therein lies our cultural bias of human supremacy. As long as we believe that just being a member of another species is a valid reason to exploit or discriminate, or to use that “inferior other” as our piece of property, then we accept the same flawed beliefs that rationalize exploitation based on religion, color, race, gender and sexual preference.” -Robert Grillo
  6. Yeah, I figured as much.
  7. We’ve got a bad ass over here!
  8. No. It’s not. Is a vegetable a living, sentient being? Just because something has being going on for a long time doesn’t make it right. And FYI our transition to an agricultural society occurred about 10,000 years ago and intensive farming only came about in the past 200 years. Not quite “before time”. I know it’s Friday, but don’t be facetious just to say something.
  9. Is bringing an animal into this world just so it can have its neck slit in a few weeks’ or months’ time not animal abuse? A cow can live up to 15-20 years, but dairy cows rarely make it past 6, because their bodies give in from forced pregnancy after forced pregnancy. Chickens have been selectively bread to reach slaughter weight in a few weeks time, growing so quickly that their legs can barely support their body weight and they suffer from ammonia burns from living their entire lives in their own excrement. The examples are endless. This is abuse. It is exploitation. We have no right to do this to these animals. We do it simply because we can. And I don’t think it’s necessary for me to explain as to why ‘Might is Right’ is a morally bankrupt position.
  10. ‘Cause it shows the inherent contradiction and hypocrisy of meat eater logic. “Kick my dog and I’ll moer you!” “Mmm, steak!”
  11. Shhh! You’ll feel like a champ afterwards!
  12. Ding! Ding! Ding! Well, his and all the other investors I suppose.
  13. You know, it's not as daunting as it seems. There's definitely a learning curve. Easiest and most impactful is to start with your plate. I think it also makes one more aware of the impact of your consumer choices - where do things come from, how were they made, etc.
  14. Fortunately there are vegan alternatives for basically everything. The only leather objects I have, off the top off my head, are my late father's leather-bound Bible and a leather belt I got years ago. Edit: I'm lying. My sofas. We bought them from Ikea in 2015 and they have some leather pieces. Ironically about 6 months or so before I started toying with veganism. We're going to replace them in Jan '20.
  15. This brings us back to the question. If you don't have to do it, why do we do it? It also goes back to the point I was making earlier. Can you ethically and morally exploit? We reject that notion when we discuss human interactions, but accept it when it comes to non-human animals. How can we morally kill an animal who does not want to die and who's death is just to satisfy our craving for a steak? I hear what you're saying, but my little peanut just cannot accept that there is such a things as 'just a little exploitation, a little death, just for that cheese and steak' is okay. As to your last point, veganism doesn't ask you to do that.
  16. You know, NSBB. That's okay. I know that my style of discussion is not for everyone. Patch frequently takes issue with it, but I convey the message from my understanding. Perhaps it's too factual, too confrontational and too little pandering. Many people find a message of veganism centered around the animals and our exploitation of them too confrontational. Having a look at the massive response to The Game Changers reinforces this - people consider change because of what they can get out of it, not because they think it's the right thing to do. That insatiable human ego. Perhaps I'm to idealistic for my own good, hoping that people can align their actions when faced with this injustice. My aim is to drive a discussion with the exploitation of animals front 'n center.
  17. Bentham has put this more eloquently than I: "The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
  18. Please, for the love of god, where did I make that comparison? If I ever said that people here are 'rapists', the by all means, draw and quarter me, but if not, don't make stuff that straw-man. The fact remains. People are quick to claim that morality is subjective - "Don't judge me for eating meat!", but are quick to judge the actions of humans who hurt other humans or even humans who hurt animals that they don't eat. "Those damn Chinese are barbaric for torturing and eating those dogs at the Yulin festival" whilst tucking into a steak. You can't eat your cake and have it too. It's hypocritical. You either accept that we have to treat all sentient animals (humans included) with basic moral consideration or you reject all basic morality and everybody is free to do as he or she pleases, consequences be damned.
  19. Nice side-step, but I'd like to see an answer.
  20. Don't you do the same when you condemn a murderer or a rapist? Or do you indulge them their subjective moral framework? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that I'm forcing my moral code on others, but condemn others when you see them causing others to suffer.
  21. Where did I say that? The intelligence that you referred to allows us to make conscious and reasoned decisions about our actions. Thus, if we can live healthily and happily without harming our fellow earthlings, we have a moral imperative to do so.
  22. Basic principles of ethics and justice.
  23. Humans are not separate from nature. We are of nature. I’m not sure how you arrived at that. We can objectively know that animals have the capacity to suffer. From physical pain to emotional distress (e.g. zoochosis). They can act in an altruistic fashion. They can understand fairness. These are all traits of sentience. All animals aren’t intelligent in the same manner, but are equal in their capacity to suffer. We do not need to fret about giving animals the right to vote, only that their life and freedom is not ours to take.
  24. No. I’m not talking about his trial. I’m talking about the morality of his actions. Not legality.
My Profile My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Settings Help Logout