The Veganism Thread

[Mudsimus]

Im not going to entertain you. You compare a rapist to someone eating animals as if its the same. In what universe. Its just silly. When will vegans start campaigns to criminalize the slaughter of animals? Im sure its in the pipeline, but its laughable.

[Patchelicious]

Who gave you the right to apply your ethics and moral code to others?

 

 

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. 

 

Yeah he wasn't saying that you are forcing your morals on anybody.

 

You are applying your morals and ethics to the world, as am I, as is Mudi, as is every single person on this forum.

 

What you can not do is expect everybody to simply agree with you version of morals and ethics, and yes it is versioned. 

 

Maybe just maybe you will have more success in people listening to your message if you stop comparing your audience to rapists.

[Odinson]

Yeah he wasn't saying that you are forcing your morals on anybody.

 

You are applying your morals and ethics to the world, as am I, as is Mudi, as is every single person on this forum.

 

What you can not do is expect everybody to simply agree with you version of morals and ethics, and yes it is versioned. 

 

Maybe just maybe you will have more success in people listening to your message if you stop comparing your audience to rapists.

 

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. 

[Patchelicious]

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. 

 

Everybody has a slightly different version of morality. But I suspect very few people will follow this extremely binary point of view.

[Odinson]

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

[MTBeer]

This is what a ate today after some easy intervals.

What I don't understand is that I took this picture and it was 4MB and bikehub only allows 3.something MB. So I sent this picture to my friend so that he can send it back to me and then the picture lost its size??

that looks delicious

Edited October 31, 2019 by MTBeer

[NotSoBigBen]

Is probably of no or very little consequence to Odinson, Josh.the.'man' or any other of the vegan congregants but the recent posts on this thread have in fact had the opposite effect they would want I suspect for me anyway.

 

I wish them well though and won't bother to get any further thoughts and info regarding this matter from this thread.

[Grease_Monkey]

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. 

 

Lots of people (including myself) will disagree on this point.

 

I agree 100% that the way humans are treating the world and animals cannot continue and is immoral and plain stupid. But I do believe there is an in between. Just like some animals kill to eat (I don't think a lion is applying a moral code, he is just eating), we can also kill to eat without it being morally wrong. 

 

But, and this is a key "but" - they way we as humans do it has to change. The way we look after the animals we eat, they way we kill them, and the quantity in which we do is not healthy, moral, or sustainable. There is a sustainable manner in which we can still eat meat, there is a moral way (in my view) of killing animals painlessly,  and there is a healthy way to do it.

 

In my ideal world (an I am making this change myself at the moment) is that we choose very carefully where we source our meat (farming methods, killing methods, etc - decide for yourself what is moral here), that we cut down on how much meat we eat (max 3 to 4 servings in a week), and live on a primarily plant based diet with minimal animal products. I think that's realistic, sustainable, and moral (subjectively - I don't see human life and any animal life in the same light).

Edited October 31, 2019 by Grease_Monkey

[Odinson]

Is probably of no or very little consequence to Odinson, Josh.the.'man' or any other of the vegan congregants but the recent posts on this thread have in fact had the opposite effect they would want I suspect for me anyway.

 

I wish them well though and won't bother to get any further thoughts and info regarding this matter from this thread.

 

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. 

[Odinson]

Lots of people (including myself) will disagree on this point.

 

I agree 100% that the way humans are treating the world and animals cannot continue and is immoral and plain stupid. But I do believe there is an in between. Just like some animals kill to eat (I don't think a lion is applying a moral code, he is just eating), we can also kill to eat without it being morally wrong. 

 

But, and this is a key "but" - they way we as humans do it has to change. The way we look after the animals we eat, they way we kill them, and the quantity in which we do is not healthy, moral, or sustainable. There is a sustainable manner in which we can still eat meat, there is a moral way (in my view) of killing animals painlessly,  and there is a healthy way to do it.

 

In my ideal world (an I am making this change myself at the moment) is that we choose very carefully where we source our meat (farming methods, killing methods, etc - decide for yourself what is moral here), that we cut down on how much meat we eat (max 3 to 4 servings in a week), and live on a primarily plant based diet with minimal animal products. I think that's realistic, sustainable, and moral (subjectively - I don't see human life and any animal life in the same light).

 

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. 

[Odinson]

Just a question! Do you not use any animal products at all, leather Etc or just for food purposes? No leather shoes or belts?

 

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.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Odinson

[Grease_Monkey]

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.

We don't have to, I agree. But I do want to. And I don't see killing an animal to eat it as exploitation or morally wrong in any way - that's why we will probably never see completely eye to eye.

 

Where I do see a need for a mostly plant based diet is from a health,sustainability, as well as a moral view in the sense that we cannot possibly produce meats in the quantity we do without large scale suffering for animals both while they live and in the manner in which they are killed.

 

The killing is not an issue for me, the issue is the sometimes (or maybe more than sometimes) the way in which it is done.

 

PS, I know veganism does not ask me to see human and animals in the same light - it is just often argued like that to drive home the morality issue.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Grease_Monkey

[Odinson]

If you can honestly say you don't use animal products, I am very impressed. It makes your comments a little more meaningful to me. I cannot say the same. I will never be a vegan by any means.

 

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. 

[Eldron]

I'm still battling with the binary approach to this thread.

 

Eating less meat is good for the environment, good for your health (in general), good for your wallet and it means less animals have to be raised just to be slaughtered.

 

Surely it is the right thing to do?

 

You don't have to go straight to vegan - any reduction is a good reduction.

 

It's weird how people don't want to be "sold" a concept. Hell one bloke even said he'd eat more meat because of Odi's approach.

 

So how do you get meat eaters to "buy" the concept of eating less meat if the concept of "selling" it to them seems unlikely/impossible?

Edited October 31, 2019 by Eldron

[Patchelicious]

I'm still battling with the binary approach to this thread.

 

Eating less meat is good for the environment, good for your health (in general), good for your wallet and it means less animals have to be raised just to be slaughtered.

 

Surely it is the right thing to do?

 

You don't have to go straight to vegan - any reduction is a good reduction.

 

It's weird how people don't want to be "sold" a concept. Hell one bloke even said he'd eat more meat because of Odi's approach.

 

So how do you get meat eaters to "buy" the concept of eating less meat if the concept of "selling" it to them seems unlikely/impossible?

I think he bold part answers the underlined part.

 

Meat reduction should be applauded, inquiries about vegetarianism should be encouraged. I don't believe that we can argue people into veganism.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Patchelicious

[Patchelicious]

Almost forgot. Some pics from Neat Burger in London. Crazy good junk/fast food! 

 

73286529_2498141586907884_50066541143654400_n.jpg

 

IMG_5606.jpg

 

Don't ask my why that 2nd pic is rotated. Something up with the uploader. 

Hold on.... is this Lewis' new shop?