Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[pengaleng]

Absolutely priceless!!!

virtue signalling all over

 

[littlebabyjesus]

oops, I've posted again.

 

[Spymaster]

Carnists hate old ladies.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Carnists eat old ladies.

 

[mojo pixy]

Carnists have better carnal knowledge though.

 

[mojo pixy]

I mean, if we're being consistent in our use of carn-
??
lol

 

[AnnaKarpik]

i offer 27p.

OK guys, negotiations start at four figures. And that's four before the decimal point with no leading zeros.

Over to you.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

View attachment 111747

You're seriously bitchin' about 17 posts on a 30 page thread?

oops! 18 now!

 

[cupid_stunt]

OK guys, negotiations start at four figures. And that's four before the decimal point with no leading zeros.

Over to you.

1000 Zimbabwe dollars.

* £2.15

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I don't think so. There's plenty of annoying meat eaters and that doesn't put me off a decent rare fillet.

 

[NoXion]

I also have not had as much time recently. I've been helping an 89 old lady who's struggling to look after herself and husband with little support. As a country we could look after our old people a bit better. Anyway, I've digressed. Yes, indeed there is an awful lot of nonsense posts and people have a go, a sly dig here and there not much of any substance because they've decided to try and drown out anything sensible that might have emerged. For people that don't much care for veganism, they've invested quite a lot of time and energy to "have a go" and are currently dominating the leaderboard.

View attachment 111747
Now that's some dedication for folks that claim that they "ain't bovvered" by vegan talk.


VOP eh? Not bad. Or how about CC? No not the dieselgate Volkswagen Passat derivative, it's the Carnist Coalition. Maybe we need some marketing advice from Saatchi and Saatchi.
I've not heard of the roaming millenial stuff. I'll get round to it eventually. These videos are usually on the long side and I have to be in the mood and have the time, but there is a lot of good stuff out there (and also a lot of rubbish). Here's one that I saw last week which I thought was alright...

I reckon this thread was started as a trolling attempt in the first instance, so as far as I'm concerned the only way was up from there. Speaking as one of those horrible malzoan carnists, if I really was that bothered about veganism, I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than just ribbing it over the internet. As long as the vegetablists don't try to put the force of the State behind their views, my relatively laissez-faire attitude will remain that way.

 

[ddraig]

apt

 

[mrs quoad]

Tbf, I've seen lbj identify the point at which discussions go no further, which seems pretty accurate to me. I missed the bit where that turned into calling your assumptions "unreasonable," as opposed to pointing out that your vs e.g. my assumptions, and where they differ, and the specific fetishisation of death, are where further dialogue appear to become impossible.

veganomics PaoloSanchez

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That little cartoon does quite succinctly illustrate why we talk past one another. For you, if someone wouldn't want you to kill their dog, how can they justify killing other animals?

To take the example of the farm I linked to earlier, which farms in a way that I think is a good way, the animals on that farm are killed when their usefulness is over, or they're killed because that is their usefulness. It is necessarily using the animals instrumentally - the animals are its business. Being killed is a part of the deal the farmer has made for them, without their consent or knowledge, to be alive in the first place, at which point they are replaced by the next generation of cows or pigs or chickens, for whom the same deal applies.

Is this humans lording it over other animals? Clearly it is. Do we have different relationships with different species? Again, yes. And with a pet dog, we enter into a very different deal, as we would with a pet pig.

For you, entering into that deal of death in the first place is morally wrong. For me, it isn't necessarily. For me, how we treat those animals for whom the deal is ultimate death matters.

And with that, perhaps we can talk past one another for a while again. Maybe you can post up another little cartoon.

So, would you say it's fair to sum up your ethical position as this: if we give animals a good life then this compensates them for the premature death we inflict upon, and thereby makes it morally permissible (all else equal)?

If this is your position, does it mean that you're opposed to fresh water fishing and hunting where we do not give animals anything - all we do is deprive them of life?

Are you also opposed to egg and dairy production that involve the killing of male offspring shortly after birth because they are economically worthless? The short, sad lives of these poor creatures cannot be described as good in any sense after all.

If you do think these practices are acceptable then the basis for your ethical justification outlined above does not explain why. If that is the case, could you spell out what your wider position is?

Would you have any qualms with somebody sending their pet dog to a premature death in an industrial slaughterhouse so that they could be turned into a fur coat? Assuming that they gave these dogs a good life then how could you object on your own terms? (n.b, you need to do better than just appeal to 'different relationships' - that's both begging the question [because the basis for those relationships is what is being challenged] and an appeal to tradition fallacy [traditions themselves are not inherently morally good after all].

Also - what you are defending here is, on your own account, a relationship of betrayal and exploitation of individuals who are vulnerable, innocent and are entirely at our mercy. In normal circumstances that would be regarded as a deeply immoral enterprise. What is it about them being non-human animals that makes it acceptable? I would appreciate it if you were specific here - name the difference that you think makes something that would otherwise be profoundly wrong something to be perfectly fine.

A final thing, you claim that you are against factory farming, but have repeatedly admitted that you regularly consume its products. Why do you think that is? I assure you that you are not alone in this hypocrisy. Every supposed advocate of happy meat that I've ever known in fact takes very little care over the sourcing of their animal products (and I used to be exactly the same when I held this position btw). (I would recommend reading part 2 of this insightful essay, which I think provides a plausible hypothesis as to why this might be the case: Why "Happy Meat" Is Always Wrong, an Ebook by Magnus Vinding). Here's a question for you: given that we both agree that factory farming is evil, doesn't the fact that humane meat advocates consistently support it in practice whereas vegans do not make a strong consequentialist case in favour of veganism for that reason alone?

 

[Riklet]

Some individualistic lifestyle facebook rambling makes me hate a few vegan types but in general I respect the decision and think it's very principled.

If it was organised by 'us' 'society' etc in a concious drive to avoid environmental catastrophe in a post-capitalist world of course I'd be keen.

At the moment though, currently, a few eggs and some delish honey is not going to make any difference whatsover. So what puts me off aside from liking animal products is not reallly the smugness.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

veganomics PaoloSanchez

Not sure why you tagged me after quoting yourself. I'm not sure what you were trying to get at tbh. Fetishisation of death? wtf is that?

lbf gave himself an "out" right at the start of this thread, with his unilateral declaration that there is nothing more to discuss on this matter, even though he's in the top two posters in this thread has been pushed to the front as the meat eaters spokesperson and chief advocate. He has attached himself to the moral argument which he apparently believes to a compelling one, and I don't believe is a very good argument. Of course there is no way to prove whether it is moral or immoral to kill animals for food when we don't need to, however there is still plenty of talking points imo. For starters lbj has not offered any real explanation as to why it's not wrong and immoral, he simply declares that it just isn't as if it's a given, and that vegans just don't get this. He rather conveniently ignores the other fairly sound reasons people decide to stop consuming animal products, presumably because most of those reasons are on fairly solid ground and make good sense from a health, environmental and economic perspective, and so are harder to argue against.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

apt

VeganSidekick nails it again.

 

[NoXion]

I've no problem in principle with eating dogs, although I've heard their meat can be a bit stringy. I'd certainly give it a try though. Same thing with horse, assuming it was actually intended for eating when it was reared, rather than being from some old nag that was stuffed with Cthulhu knows what throughout its life in order to win races.

 

[xenon]

So, would you say it's fair to sum up your ethical position as this: if we give animals a good life then this compensates them for the premature death we inflict upon, and thereby makes it morally permissible (all else equal)?

If this is your position, does it mean that you're opposed to fresh water fishing and hunting where we do not give animals anything - all we do is deprive them of life?

Are you also opposed to egg and dairy production that involve the killing of male offspring shortly after birth because they are economically worthless? The short, sad lives of these poor creatures cannot be described as good in any sense after all.

If you do think these practices are acceptable then the basis for your ethical justification outlined above does not explain why. If that is the case, could you spell out what your wider position is?

Would you have any qualms with somebody sending their pet dog to a premature death in an industrial slaughterhouse so that they could be turned into a fur coat? Assuming that they gave these dogs a good life then how could you object on your own terms? (n.b, you need to do better than just appeal to 'different relationships' - that's both begging the question [because the basis for those relationships is what is being challenged] and an appeal to tradition fallacy [traditions themselves are not inherently morally good after all].

Also - what you are defending here is, on your own account, a relationship of betrayal and exploitation of individuals who are vulnerable, innocent and are entirely at our mercy. In normal circumstances that would be regarded as a deeply immoral enterprise. What is it about them being non-human animals that makes it acceptable? I would appreciate it if you were specific here - name the difference that you think makes something that would otherwise be profoundly wrong something to be perfectly fine.

A final thing, you claim that you are against factory farming, but have repeatedly admitted that you regularly consume its products. Why do you think that is? I assure you that you are not alone in this hypocrisy. Every supposed advocate of happy meat that I've ever known in fact takes very little care over the sourcing of their animal products (and I used to be exactly the same when I held this position btw). (I would recommend reading part 2 of this insightful essay, which I think provides a plausible hypothesis as to why this might be the case: Why "Happy Meat" Is Always Wrong, an Ebook by Magnus Vinding). Here's a question for you: given that we both agree that factory farming is evil, doesn't the fact that humane meat advocates consistently support it in practice whereas vegans do not make a strong consequentialist case in favour of veganism for that reason alone?

This is an excellent post.

Personally, I have nothing to counter it offhand. Other than suffice to say, rationality is unevenly applied.

 

[Casually Red]

So, would you say it's fair to sum up your ethical position as this: if we give animals a good life then this compensates them for the premature death we inflict upon, and thereby makes it morally permissible (all else equal)?

If this is your position, does it mean that you're opposed to fresh water fishing and hunting where we do not give animals anything - all we do is deprive them of life?

Are you also opposed to egg and dairy production that involve the killing of male offspring shortly after birth because they are economically worthless? The short, sad lives of these poor creatures cannot be described as good in any sense after all.

If you do think these practices are acceptable then the basis for your ethical justification outlined above does not explain why. If that is the case, could you spell out what your wider position is?

Would you have any qualms with somebody sending their pet dog to a premature death in an industrial slaughterhouse so that they could be turned into a fur coat? Assuming that they gave these dogs a good life then how could you object on your own terms? (n.b, you need to do better than just appeal to 'different relationships' - that's both begging the question [because the basis for those relationships is what is being challenged] and an appeal to tradition fallacy [traditions themselves are not inherently morally good after all].

Also - what you are defending here is, on your own account, a relationship of betrayal and exploitation of individuals who are vulnerable, innocent and are entirely at our mercy. In normal circumstances that would be regarded as a deeply immoral enterprise. What is it about them being non-human animals that makes it acceptable? I would appreciate it if you were specific here - name the difference that you think makes something that would otherwise be profoundly wrong something to be perfectly fine.

A final thing, you claim that you are against factory farming, but have repeatedly admitted that you regularly consume its products. Why do you think that is? I assure you that you are not alone in this hypocrisy. Every supposed advocate of happy meat that I've ever known in fact takes very little care over the sourcing of their animal products (and I used to be exactly the same when I held this position btw). (I would recommend reading part 2 of this insightful essay, which I think provides a plausible hypothesis as to why this might be the case: Why "Happy Meat" Is Always Wrong, an Ebook by Magnus Vinding). Here's a question for you: given that we both agree that factory farming is evil, doesn't the fact that humane meat advocates consistently support it in practice whereas vegans do not make a strong consequentialist case in favour of veganism for that reason alone?

We ..in the west..don't eat dogs purely for cultural reasons , same with horses and insects ..actually that's more a British thing, most of Europe will happily scoff a horse . But make no mistake about it we are about 6 or 7 square meals away from saying " fuck it...fidos for the pot " . we would if we were hungry enough . And fido would eat us too and have not an ounce of remorse .
The Swiss eat dogs , so do many people in Asia . It's nothing more than a cultural taste . You might as well be talking about coconut oil or curry powder . A matter of taste and nothing else .

 

[Casually Red]

Trying the Hadza hunter-gatherer berry and porcupine diet - BBC News

Malzoan carnists eating the poor little animals .

 

[A380]

We ..in the west..don't eat dogs purely for cultural reasons , same with horses and insects ..actually that's more a British thing, most of Europe will happily scoff a horse . But make no mistake about it we are about 6 or 7 square meals away from saying " fuck it...fidos for the pot " . we would if we were hungry enough . And fido would eat us too and have not an ounce of remorse .
The Swiss eat dogs , so do many people in Asia . It's nothing more than a cultural taste . You might as well be talking about coconut oil or curry powder . A matter of taste and nothing else .

And you know that however much you love your cat it would eat your face if you were still for mor than 12 hours.

 

[Casually Red]

And you know that however much you love your cat it would eat your face if you were still for mor than 12 hours.

With zero remorse . It wouldn't pine, it'd eat you .

 

[A380]

With zero remorse . It wouldn't pine, it'd eat you .

Mine would get all their feline mates in for a party.

 

[Watermelon Man]

What people can't deny is that they have been brainwashed/programmed into eating dead animals and drinking cows milk. It goes on today. Schools telling children that dairy is "essential" in their diet. This is of course programming. Industry led programming.

The main reasons you eat dead animals is because you've been programmed to do so. Yes, you might like the taste but the main reason is for you to give money to the meat industry and possibly the pharmaceutical industry too.

 

[Casually Red]

What people can't deny is that they have been brainwashed/programmed into eating dead animals and drinking cows milk. It goes on today. Schools telling children that dairy is "essential" in their diet. This is of course programming. Industry led programming.

The main reasons you eat dead animals is because you've been programmed to do so. Yes, you might like the taste but the main reason is for you to give money to the meat industry and possibly the pharmaceutical industry too.

We eat dead animals because eating live ones make too much noise and mess . They put up much less of a struggle once theyre dead . It's also easier to get them onto the plate .

 

[A380]

What people can't deny is that they have been brainwashed/programmed into eating dead animals and drinking cows milk. It goes on today. Schools telling children that dairy is "essential" in their diet. This is of course programming. Industry led programming.

The main reasons you eat dead animals is because you've been programmed to do so. Yes, you might like the taste but the main reason is for you to give money to the meat industry and possibly the pharmaceutical industry too.

Yes, you are right I have no free will.

But thankfully you have now drawn the blinds from my previously sheeple like eyes.

 

[Watermelon Man]

Yes, you are right I have no free will.

But thankfully you have now drawn the blinds from my previously sheeple like eyes.

You have been programmed to eat meat and dairy. It's as simple as that. From day one! You are basically, the meat and dairy industries bitch.

 

[Casually Red]

You are basically, the meat and dairy industries bitch.

 

[Watermelon Man]

word!

Edited to add. Those people got paid by the meat and dairy industry for sure!