Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[Spymaster]

Wow, and this coming from the master troll who has contributed precious little himself.

Oh I know my limitations and I'm not about to mix it with LBJ, Athos, Pilch, and Jeff, in an ethics debate. I'll sit back and read instead. I'm happy to consider and learn, but generally speaking, dicking twats like you around on the internet is more my level.

Anyhow, some people like that sort of pseudo-academic semantic torture

Thoughtful debate = pseudo-academic semantic torture. That pretty much sums you up.

"very far from being well attended"? lol. Now if that's not an example of genuine bollocks I don't know what is. Here's some numbers for you...

Number of urban75 General forum threads: 117, 953
Ranking of this "angry vegan" thread - replies: 54 (1,915)
Ranking of this "angry vegan" thread - views: 49 (23,542)
Ranking of "anti vegetarian backlash" thread - replies 36 (2,773)
Ranking of "anti vegetarian backlash" thread - views 26 (34,632)
Number of members posting on this "angry vegan" thread: 128
Number of posts/day: 46
Number of views/day: 565

Did you see that? In this forum, there are actually 117,899 threads ranked lower than this thread by number of replies. Quite remarkable for a thread that's barely six weeks old don't you think? Not well attended? You're 'avin a larf, lol.

Now given that veg*ns are an overwhelming minority there would appear to be an awful lot of meateaters that "don't care". I mean genuinely not caring would mean, you know, avoiding the subject, and yet they come, like vultures to a dead wildebeest. It seems that they really DO care, even if they only care enough to have a go, doesn't matter, still gives the subject plenty of air time and as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. It's all good.

Oh dear!

Do you not see the glaring error you've just made?

Now, shoo. And take you silly videos with you. Nobody is watching them.

 

[mrs quoad]

Have you heard of echo chambers, Paolo?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Now, shoo. And take you silly videos with you. Nobody is watching them.

Yeah sure...a bit like there's "nobody" in this thread, lol.

Here's another good one for your ethics catalogue...



Enjoy.

 

[Spymaster]

Seriously. Nobody (at least, nobody that you want) is clicking on them.

a bit like there's "nobody" in this thread

I'll leave others to judge you on this.

 

[bimble]

...and here comes the white knight.

What is this shit now?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

...and here comes the white knight.

Just goes to show how heavily one sided and biased some people can be. Refusing to answer something? I answered the rude twat perfectly well the first time, he wasn't happy with my answer and so kept chasing even though he has on a number of occasions thrown his toys out of the pram "I'm not playing with you any more" stylee. He has relentlessly pursued the acceptance of his "humane slaughter" concept and isn't happy that I don't agree with his precious idea hence the increasingly desperate hounding.

One of the main differences between myself and the rude twat is that I am ok with RT having a different opinion to myself, I do not feel the need to harrass and harry anybody that disagrees with me even if they are championing something as ridiculous (to me) as "humane slaughter". lbj on the other hand cannot fathom someone not believing as he does and will come up with all sorts of convoluted and elaborate questions in order to try and get acceptance and then get into a strop when you don't agree with him. Sounds more like a

You did not answer. You merely gave reasons why you would not answer, mostly that it was too hypothetical. So I addressed those reasons and gave you a concrete example that actually happened instead. And you did not answer that either. And then you ridiculed the question and I called you a cunt.

As for the drivel above about humane slaughter, you are absurdly wrong. I have explicitly said that this is one of the points of difference between me and others like you - that I consider such a thing possible and you don't.

You didn't have to reply to my post. It wasn't aimed specifically at you, merely at anybody who wished to give an answer. You could have ignored it. Or you could have answered with something honest such as 'in a vegan non-animal-using world there would be some casualties, but it's worth it'. Instead you pretended that it was a non-problem. You pretend that there is no downside whatever to any of your beliefs, which makes you either disingenuous or an idiot.

 

[mojo pixy]

...and here comes the white knight.

lolwut?

 

[mojo pixy]

...mockery from some gobby pseud who seems to think diet + internet posting = activism

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's got taurine added, which is what cats need. You can see how impressed the cat looks.

"Human grade ingredients"?

It's fucking Soylent Green!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's the gang of meat-trolls. It is the phenomenon that happens on nearly all forums and all threads where this topic is raised. Bacon mmmmmmm!
It's a bit like how school bullies picking on unpopular kids.
Bullies Pick on Unpopular Kids, Study Finds

You keep making false equivalences, and your false equivalences keep marking you as a dick. Don't be a dick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hmm, that's an overly dramatic word to use in this instance, no? So I take it if a man has a vasectomy, that's also "sexual mutilation", right? Our cat had already been sterilised before she was with us, and I don't consider it to be sexual mutilation.

A man has a vasectomy through choice. A tomcat, not so much.

 

[A380]

A man has a vasectomy through choice. A tomcat, not so much.

Also I had a vacectomy and, the last time I looked, my bollocks were still there and functioning. Just not conectected. It didn't change my personality or make me fat and lazy *

*TBF I was fat and lazy before...

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I don't think that distinction between empathy and self-interest is that stark, in this context.; often that means realising that we wouldn't want what's happening to them to happen to us. To achieve which we agree at a social level that it ought not to happen to anyone. The social aspect is important, as that addresses your claim that my understanding implies that individuals should breach others' human rights where they have a self- interest in doing so.

In any event, I'm not sure I accept that it's anyone's interests to violate others' human rights. At best, it's a gamble that it won't undermine such protections should you seek to rely on them in an unknown future.

But, even if is, at a social level, can still be the underpinning, regardless of whether or not there's some individual exceptions. Whatever you say the basis of human rights are, there'll be some exceptions (as evidenced by the fact they're not universally observed).

If not, what do you think the basis of human rights is? And why should they apply to other animals?

I agree somewhat that self-interest and empathy are not necessarily in stark contrast with one another, we need an account of exactly what we mean by self interest (and empathy too for that matter) to know how these two phenomena interact.

I also agree that 'We empathise with others by putting ourselves in their shoes' but that empathy does not stop at the species barrier, I can also imagine what it is like to be in the hooves, claws or trotters of another creature. I know we are related in biology and evolution to the other animals, I know we share with them, in varying degrees, our pysiology and psychology. I know many of them (all vertebrates at least and some invertebrates too) can suffer. I can see from their behaviour and facial expressions signs of distress, fear, pain and despair as well as happiness, satisfaction and contentment.

When I see other animals (mammals at least) suffering, my empathy is engaged just as strongly as when I see humans suffering. I think this is true of most people. Most people hate seeing animals suffering and only continue supporting the industries inflicting the suffering because that suffering is "out of sight, out of mind".

I do not find your claims about human rights convincing. They rest on the contingent and implausible claim that it's always impossible for committing a human rights violation to be in the violator's self interest.

I think the basis for human rights relates to the moral status of human beings. Humans possess moral status in my view on account of their sentience. I am aware that this is an unorthodox view but I am convinced it is the correct one. Setting the bar for rights any higher than sentience inevitably excludes some humans in ways no defender of human rights is prepared to accept. I have read many attempts to get round this problem and they are, in my view, all implausible and post hoc in character.

Animal rights and human rights share the same basis therefore: sentience. This doesn't mean that humans and the other animals have the same rights, but humans don't have the same rights either (children don't have the right to vote, the profoundly cognitively impaired don't have a right to liberty etc.). Human rights are just a convenient shorthand for a subset of sentient rights that applies to the interests that most humans have at some point in their existence.

 

[Athos]

I do not find your claims about human rights convincing. They rest on the contingent and implausible claim that it's always impossible for committing a human rights violation to be in the violator's self interest.

I concede that that point was a weak one, but would argue that my conception of human rights doesn't rest on such a position. You atm determined to overlook my contents about the social, as opposed to individualistic, aspects.

 

[Athos]

I think the basis for human rights relates to the moral status of human beings. Humans possess moral status in my view on account of their sentience.

It's be interested to hear you expand on this a bit.

In other news, my eldest has just announced that she'd like to become a vegetarian.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

In other news, my eldest has just announced that she'd like to become a vegetarian.

Thoughts with you at this difficult time

 

[mojo pixy]

When I announced it at 13 to my ma and pa they told me I'd have to start cooking for myself.
At the time it seemed crap, but looking back it was the best thing they could have said.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the basis for human rights relates to the moral status of human beings. Humans possess moral status in my view on account of their sentience. I am aware that this is an unorthodox view but I am convinced it is the correct one. Setting the bar for rights any higher than sentience inevitably excludes some humans in ways no defender of human rights is prepared to accept. I have read many attempts to get round this problem and they are, in my view, all implausible and post hoc in character.

Humans possess moral status because we humans grant it to ourselves, in the end. I'm not so sure there's much more to it than that. And we are also free to extend it beyond ourselves - or not. Some would extend it to foetuses, others not. Some societies have practised a form of post-natal abortion, so did not really extend moral status to babies.

My position wrt foetuses/babies is that the moment of birth is the sensible place to convey moral status, to convey rights, but that's essentially arbitrary, a pragmatic decision given that it is the moment at which the woman's autonomy is no longer a competing issue. It seems hugely misguided to me when people try to identify some point earlier than that in debates about abortion limits – a point during gestation when some particular aspect of the foetus has developed. For one, being sentient is not the same as being conscious, as having constructed a model of yourself in the world that is experience, and for two, these aspects are also entirely arbitrary but of little pragmatic use. That has to mean that sentience cannot be the rule being used here.

 

[veganomics]

Indeed, and timely with yet another "holier than thou" baseless accusation that usually gets trotted out when rational arguments are in short supply, as Kerry mentions in that video...

"...and if I could labour the self-righteousness point, I think this is a sign that we're onto something. Self-righteousness is a term that comes up as an affront to people doing the right thing when there's no compelling evidence to suggest that they're not. So there's no argument against them, the best one can do is to say 'well I think you look very smug about doing the right thing, I don't think people will like you'.

Well I'm not ashamed of doing right and knowing it. Society appeals to our vanity to make us comply with destructive behaviours in order to fit in because the destructive behaviours make money, but I'm not so vain that I live in mortal terror of somebody mistakenly thinking I'm smug about what I eat, I mean how shallow would you need to be to lose sleep over that.

In any case if you do feel embarrassed about having to say to someone 'I don't eat that I'm a vegan', you just have to get a backbone about it, because where we do something that sets a good example to others we should strive to let people see that. It's not about us feeling good."

Right on the money!

 

[veganomics]

I think there's something to what you're saying if I've understood you correctly. In general people don't like to feel that they're being judged. Vegans tend to make choices based on what they believe to be the right thing to do from either a health, environmental, ethical or compassionate standpoint or any combination of those. Some might focus only on one of those, others might embrace all of them. This can represent a challenge to people who are not vegan and can cause them to launch pre-emptive strikes against vegans in order to try and defend their position.

Pre-emptive strike is a fairly accurate description of what has been my experience whenever this subject is raised both in real life and online.

 

[veganomics]

"Humane" meat? ...

"There's nothing humane about breeding animals only to kill them, and there's nothing humane about ending the life of a healthy animal in his or her youth. We only tell ourselves it is so we can sleep at night and so that we can continue to see things as we want to and not as they really are."

That's a good summary. I always found the term humane slaughter to be a bit ridiculous.

 

[mrs quoad]

"There's nothing humane about breeding animals only to kill them, and there's nothing humane about ending the life of a healthy animal in his or her youth. We only tell ourselves it is so we can sleep at night and so that we can continue to see things as we want to and not as they really are."

That's a good summary. I always found the term humane slaughter to be a bit ridiculous.

Pint of milk?

Ahimsa cows are the 'happiest cows' in the world | Daily Mail Online

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Have you heard of echo chambers, Paolo?

Hell yeah, you mean like King Tubby...

I'm going to get me a dose of that at the carnival this weekend.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Seriously. Nobody (at least, nobody that you want) is clicking on them.

I'll leave others to judge you on this.

Yeah sure, there ain't nobody here, you keep telling yourself that, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The place is teeming with invisible "don't care" folk, lol.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah sure, there ain't nobody here, you keep telling yourself that, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The place is teeming with invisible "don't care" folk, lol.

Why do this to yourself?

I understand that you've been licking your wounds recently but coming back and lashing out with moronic posts like this will only make things worse.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

You did not answer. You merely gave reasons why you would not answer, mostly that it was too hypothetical. So I addressed those reasons and gave you a concrete example that actually happened instead. And you did not answer that either. And then you ridiculed the question and I called you a cunt.

I answered, you didn't like my answer (hence your stupid claim that I didn't answer), then you got into a strop (again) like a baby after chasing my around and demanding an answer. That's a bit more accurate.

As for the drivel above about humane slaughter, you are absurdly wrong. I have explicitly said that this is one of the points of difference between me and others like you - that I consider such a thing possible and you don't.

You didn't have to reply to my post. It wasn't aimed specifically at you, merely at anybody who wished to give an answer. You could have ignored it. Or you could have answered with something honest such as 'in a vegan non-animal-using world there would be some casualties, but it's worth it'. Instead you pretended that it was a non-problem. You pretend that there is no downside whatever to any of your beliefs, which makes you either disingenuous or an idiot.

Er...except that you were the one quoting me, repeatedly, and this after already flouncing off on one of your previous cry baby sulks. You appear to lose your shit if your hypotheticals are not answered in precisely the way you want them answered, and this after me telling you that it is not something I am interested in. You're like a flat track bully. I'd be quite happy for you to go and sulk in your corner and not bother replying unless you have something decent to say.

 

[ddraig]

Pint of milk?

Ahimsa cows are the 'happiest cows' in the world | Daily Mail Online

the fucking Krishnas are blurring the boundaries and weirdly worship the cow yet exploit it at the same time!

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Why do this to yourself?

I understand that you've been licking your wounds recently but coming back and lashing out with moronic posts like this will only make things worse.

lol, fuck knows what rubbish you're talking about now. You are the genuine moronic poster.
Licking wounds? What?

Things can only get better and they have already. Baby shower on Sunday, second grandchild born yesterday 20:30, 19 days early. 6lb 4oz.

 

[Spymaster]

You are the genuine moronic poster.

Ding!

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Pint of milk?

Ahimsa cows are the 'happiest cows' in the world | Daily Mail Online

A bit like the pasture-fed, grass-fed beef that everybody claims to be eating, of course this is much better than the factory farming method, however there's no way that this ahimsa milk can keep up with the current levels of demand for dairy products, and it's totally impractical. The existence of ahimsa milk is yet another lever that dairy consumers try to use to feel a bit less guilty about the horrors of milk production, even though almost nobody actually drinks ahimsa milk.