Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[Spymaster]

if you say so tag team, more like them getting shown up

Your lack of self awareness really is astonishing fella!

That ‘kill your cat’ thing was fucking brilliant though

 

[8ball]

If this wasn’t such a niche thread it could well have ended up with ‘boat happy’ in the annals of Urban history.

 

[Spymaster]

Indeed. There’s also a certain irony in ddraig inadvertently posting one of the funniest things I’ve seen on the boards for ages!

 

[Spymaster]

do you have a pet? anyone close to you have one?
ok if i come and kick it to death or slice it open?

Priceless!

 

[Horus Snacks]

round of applause for 8ball

the question(s) remains
do the interests of humans trump animals?
always in every way?

Yes.

 

[Horus Snacks]

Ooh look. Some pesky, stereotype crushing facts



'One in four' UK dinners is vegetarian

None of this is a good argument. It tells us nothing other than some people ate meat free meals sometimes.

 

[ddraig]

Yes.

so can I come round and kick/slice open/kill your cat/dog/hamster?

None of this is a good argument. It tells us nothing other than some people ate meat free meals sometimes.

it tells us that less animals are dying for food, which is a very good thing

 

[8ball]

it tells us that less animals are dying for food, which is a very good thing

Well, not directly. It just suggests more meals don’t have meat or fish in than a year ago.

It’s not an argument for anything either, just some market research results.

Though it is certainly crushing stereotypes; next time I hear a Dutch person say: “the thing about those British is that a minimum of 75% of their meals have meat or fish in them”, I’ll have this article ready-loaded on my phone and shove it right in their face.

That’ll show ‘em - the “three-quarters-of-meals-minumum-including-animal-content-not-including-eggs-or-dairy” assuming bastards!

I should go round their country and kill their pets - teach them some fucking empathy!

 

[8ball]

Yes.

Actually marginally more extreme than ddraig, there.

Though ddraig is funnier.

 

[AnnaKarpik]

<snip)
it tells us that less animals are dying for food, which is a very good thing

It tells us no such thing, I went to the trouble of quoting part of that survey which makes exactly that point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I basically agree with what you say about human rights, but would add a few qualifiers. First, it is true that most regard the *targeting* of civilians as a war crime but opinion is much more divided about whether the 'collateral' killing of civilians can be justified. And in other circumstances people seem willing to accept the killing of innocent individuals as a side effect of producing a greater good. For example, in the famous 'trolley problem' thought experiment, the vast majority of people are prepared to divert a train onto a side track that will kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of 5 others on the main line. In other words, there seems to be fairly widespread acceptance that in some circumstances it is permissible, and indeed justified, to kill innocent humans.

I also think the concept of 'innocence' needs unpacking. The idea of being innocent as it is used today usually means somebody who is not morally responsible or culpable of wrongdoing, but when one looks at the term's etymology it refers to something different: somebody who is not causing harm (from the Latin in- ‘not’ + nocere ‘to hurt’). You can have individuals who pose threats of harm who are not morally culpable in anyway: people labouring under serious mental delusions, people acting under extreme duress, sleep-walking people, toddlers who have come by their parent's gun etc. Many people think that if these individuals are posing lethal threats or other types of serious harm to others and the only means of averting such threats is to kill them, then killing them can be permissible on the grounds of self-defence, notwithstanding the fact that the attackers are not morally culpable in any way.

So, in my understanding of human rights, there are some instances where it is permissible to kill innocent humans as a side effect and some instances when it would be permissible to kill a non-culpable attacker. There are also circumstances where I think it is permissible to kill innocent animals as a side effect and to kill animals who non-culpably pose threats to us. I accept that farming practices will involve the killing of wild animals (both deliberate and accidental) - and that doesn't contradict my belief in animal rights, any more than my acceptance of the permissibility of killing innocent or non-culpable humans in some instances contradicts my belief in human rights.

Of course, both side-effect killings and self-defence killings are subject to necessity and proportionality considerations: if there are reasonable alternatives to killing they should be used and the killing can only be justified if the harm averted is proportionate to the harm inflicted (and significantly greater with side-effect killings). I take it that many crop-farming practices do not satisfy these criteria and so I would want them to be reformed in ways that do, but I do think that feeding of humans and preventing the spread of diseases like weil's are sufficiently weighty to justify some killing if necessary.

But this is miles away from animal agriculture - which involves the breeding, mutilation, exploitation and killing of animals who pose *no* threat to us and whom we are using not out of any necessity but rather for trivial and selfish reasons related to desire, tradition and convenience.

Regarding the train example, you're not given the option 'kill nobody', so I would suggest that this belongs to a separate argument. Killing in self-defence even where the person is innocent belongs to a similar category - again, 'kill nobody' isn't an option.

However, I do accept that these arguments can be extended to the killing of non-culpable animals. One difference would be, as in my rat example, that you'd be killing them precisely because they present a danger to humans. You might also kill animals that present a danger to crops or other animals, perhaps not even for the direct benefit of humans: you might kill animals as a result of a calculation that their presence will be devastating to an ecosystem and act on behalf of that ecosystem regardless of direct human benefit. But would you kill non-culpable humans to protect an ecosystem?

There is also the danger in this kind of thought experiment that we lose the sense of uncertainty about the future that is always there in the real world. So a man is in a sinking boat with two children. He thinks he is is the only one strong enough to steer the boat, and he thinks that they will sink before they're rescued with all that weight. What does he do? Surely the human response is that he tries to save all three of them, even if that means that they probably all die. Or he throws himself off the boat to give the children a chance. The least human response, I would suggest, would be to throw one of the children into the water, even if he sincerely believes this to be the best chance of saving one of the children. Our calculations are not always utilitarian.

 

[Spymaster]

so can I come round and kick/slice open/kill your cat/dog/hamster?

Oh my days, he’s at it again! I do like to wake up to a laugh though.

ddraig , what point do you think you’re making by suggesting you get all Jack The Ripper on people’s pets?

 

[Spymaster]

Actually marginally more extreme than ddraig, there.

Though ddraig is funnier.

Why is it more extreme? I can’t think of any sulituation where can animal’s rights can be reasonably argued to equal or surpass those of a human in similar circumstances.

 

[mojo pixy]

do you have a pet? anyone close to you have one?
ok if i come and kick it to death or slice it open?

so can I come round and kick/slice open/kill your cat/dog/hamster?

 

[Horus Snacks]

Actually marginally more extreme than ddraig, there.

Though ddraig is funnier.

Why is it extreme to think my, as a human, interests are more important to me than those of an animal who cannot engage in the social contract and reason to the same degree?

Why do you assume my post was intended as humour?

All it says is that when there are conflicting interests I pick humans over animals. It doesn't even suggest we shouldn't find ways to achieve goals that don't cause undue suffering to animals, this would be my preference - but only where possible.

So if killing a few rabbits in a lab meant we could cure cancer, I would probably pick curing cancer over the wellbeing of a brace of rabbits. Doesn't mean i find that funny or take pleasure in it.

 

[Horus Snacks]

so can I come round and kick/slice open/kill your cat/dog/hamster?

it tells us that less animals are dying for food, which is a very good thing

Is owning pets ok? Interesting

I would love to answer your question but i've no idea how you've inferring the right to breach my personal property (which in this example would include my personal livestock/pets) from my answer. Your question implied there are good reasons to overrule animal rights from my perspective, can you give me a good reason why you should need to harm my cat/dog/hamster? I don't consider your personal bloodliust to be satisfactory, but you'd be welcome to try and bust into my home. If you did you'd be met with considerable force

Animals die for food throughout nature, if less of them did so that would mean predator specices would be suffering. Most predator hunts fail anyway, so this is already not a good thing from their perspective

 

[mojo pixy]

There's definitely a heavy undertone of misanthropy in animal rights activism though.

t

Exactly what I mean. That kind of stuff does no favours for anyone, and certainly doesn't help the cause. Quite the opposite IMO.

 

[Yossarian]

Going back to the question in the thread title - there have been all kinds of arguments put forth in this thread for and against being a vegan. Some of them are sensible, others have been ridiculous, offensive, weird, or just stupid.

Have any of them put me off thinking being vegan is a good thing that I should work toward? Not one little bit. I don't fully agree with uncompromising animal rights activists, but I respect their opinions and I've got no reason to tell them they should think differently.

 

[Spymaster]

I've got no reason to tell them they should think differently.

I haven’t seen a single meat eater telling a veg-head that they should change their minds on this thread. There’s been some piss-taking but the only genuine arrogance has come the other way with the plant botherers insisting that animals are being “murdered”, fuckwitted comparisons to slavery and nazism, daft pictures and wtf videos, and now bizarre suggestions of kicking the shit out of people’s pets. Most meat eaters here seem not to give a toss what anyone else eats. The same just can’t be said of veggies.

 

[AnnaKarpik]

Going back to the question in the thread title - there have been all kinds of arguments put forth in this thread for and against being a vegan. Some of them are sensible, others have been ridiculous, offensive, weird, or just stupid.

Have any of them put me off thinking being vegan is a good thing that I should work toward? Not one little bit. I don't fully agree with uncompromising animal rights activists, but I respect their opinions and I've got no reason to tell them they should think differently.

But what did you think before reading the thread, I mean have you changed your mind in any way?

My perception of vegans has changed after reading the thread, not for the better, and tbf probably quite unjustly as regards the majority of them but there we are.
The rare forays into genuine discussion have been interesting but in the end, I can accept the fact that other animals are farmed and die for food. There are lots of things I dislike about the way it's done but that's a different argument.

 

[Horus Snacks]

But what did you think before reading the thread, I mean have you changed your mind in any way?

My perception of vegans has changed after reading the thread, not for the better, and tbf probably quite unjustly as regards the majority of them but there we are.
The rare forays into genuine discussion have been interesting but in the end, I can accept the fact that other animals are farmed and die for food. There are lots of things I dislike about the way it's done but that's a different argument.

I personally don't find veganism compelling or remotely sustainable personally. It seems a very sophisticated asceticism based on superficial notions of sustainability and morality. Grazing livestock can be beneficial to the environment while some non-meat products (palm oil, iirc) results in deforestation. Again, capitalism is th eenemy.

If your diet consists of eating fake meats so as to make your breakfast look like a 'normal' breakfast, imho, you're doing it wrong

Doesn't offend me though, nor do i think you shouldn't have the right.

 

[Yossarian]

But what did you think before reading the thread, I mean have you changed your mind in any way?

My perception of vegans has changed after reading the thread, not for the better, and tbf probably quite unjustly as regards the majority of them but there we are.
The rare forays into genuine discussion have been interesting but in the end, I can accept the fact that other animals are farmed and die for food. There are lots of things I dislike about the way it's done but that's a different argument.

Not been much change for me, tbh - I knew there were people who believe animals have the same rights as humans, so there hasn't been much said that isn't a logical extension of that. And since there are millions of vegans out there and maybe four or five vegans posting on this thread, I'm not going to make the mistake of seeing everything said here as representative of how all vegans feel.

 

[andysays]

Of all the things I never thought I'd see on Urban, ddraig channeling cat killer @franceslengel is pretty high up on the list

 

[8ball]

Why is it more extreme? I can’t think of any sulituation where can animal’s rights can be reasonably argued to equal or surpass those of a human in similar circumstances.

I was responding to the comment that human interests trump animal interests always, in every way. Not taking the case where the injury to rights might be equivalent. So taking an example at the most extreme end, torturing a horse for shits and giggles would not be justified.

 

[8ball]

Why is it extreme to think my, as a human, interests are more important to me than those of an animal who cannot engage in the social contract and reason to the same degree....all it says is that when there are conflicting interests I pick humans over animals. It doesn't even suggest we shouldn't find ways to achieve goals that don't cause undue suffering to animals, this would be my preference - but only where possible.

See my post above.

Why do you assume my post was intended as humour?

I wasn't, I don't think ddraig's posts are really intended as humour either. Though it's a pretty scathing form of satire if so, and has gone over the heads of most of us.

So if killing a few rabbits in a lab meant we could cure cancer, I would probably pick curing cancer over the wellbeing of a brace of rabbits. Doesn't mean i find that funny or take pleasure in it.

Agree. I would prefer minimising tests on whole animal models where possible.

 

[Horus Snacks]

i take human interest to mean something substantive, like curing a disease or optimal nutrition.

Not personal preference - killing or torturing an animal for pleasure. I don't think that qualifies since that could be applied simply between our own species and is thus merely emotional preference.

 

[8ball]

It tells us no such thing, I went to the trouble of quoting part of that survey which makes exactly that point.

When you combine it with the increase in meat products sold over the festive period, part of it could be that the context that people see meat in is changing. Or maybe some of them were considering Veganuary and this was akin to an "extinction burst".

Also, the big reductions on Quorn products in the supermarket suggested to me (and it seems sensible anyway), that it is vegetarians rather than full-on carnivals that have been partaking of the last month's experiment. I think that research might be indicative of a few things going on.

 

[8ball]

I personally don't find veganism compelling or remotely sustainable personally. It seems a very sophisticated asceticism based on superficial notions of sustainability and morality. Grazing livestock can be beneficial to the environment while some non-meat products (palm oil, iirc) results in deforestation.

Vegetarianism is historically intimately tied up with religious ascetic traditions.
It would be odd if that strand of its DNA had fallen away entirely.

Prediction: now that we have had Veganuary, let's see if talk of Lent has any resurgence this year.

 

[8ball]

i take human interest to mean something substantive, like curing a disease or optimal nutrition.

Not personal preference - killing or torturing an animal for pleasure. I don't think that qualifies since that could be applied simply between our own species and is thus merely emotional preference.

Yeah, that became clear later. Though I think most people who eat meat are aware of alternatives and 'optimal nutrition' isn't usually the primary goal. However 'optimal' is defined...

 

[Horus Snacks]

Not sure how else one could define optimal other than in terms of nutrition and health. That's why i say animal food, for example organ meats, are optimal, because they are loaded with nutrition and lacking in a lot of stuff that isn't healthy.