Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Quader]

@Jannes

9 hours ago, Basman said:

They mostly only care about cute mammals.

 

Would you describe such an act as the penetration of an axe to a neck in the same way a boot heel mutilates a bug without even the slightest flinch or recognition? You must understand, killing and eating is not wrong. There's something else that could be said towards killing for fun, I agree it's not my preference either. But foundationally the opposition to eating meat is immoral (moreso than the acceptance at least). If you want to talk about food waste, environmental damage, overconsumption, horrible living and slaughtering conditions in animal farms, I'm all ears. All that stuff is bad and where we should be focusing our attention. Not the anthropomorphization of particular animals we relate to in order to make an argument sweeping all animal killing/eating as gross. 

[Leo Gura]

Of course you can be a vegan for non-moral reasons.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Jannes]

19 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

I suggest the vegan tries carnivore diet for 1 month and carnivore tries vegan diet for 1 month, then do a follow-up interview.

Of course, both are too selfish to even consider such a proposal.

There are people who aren't on either side and just do both for a month for fun. Joe Rogan even did a month of vegan and a month of carnivore. 

[Princess Arabia]

10 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

At least the interview was more productive than this: 

 

I wonder how many dust mites she's stepping on as she speaks.

[bambi]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Of course you can be a vegan for non-moral reasons.

Why is being vegan due to wanting to minimize animal suffering not a good thing? Why isnt wanting to reduce suffering for all sentient entities, a good thing. Or at least unneccasary suffering?

At the very least factory farming and animal cruelty should be minimized surely lol

[bambi]

45 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

If you have lived in total comfort forever, you would potentially be like a baby crying over the slightest hurt.
This does not mean that you would be more conscious/evolved, It's just a different way of dealing with pain.

We can broadly postulate that our mirror neurons are by default overactive for some reason before being downregulated by neuroplasticity under environmental influence.

Not being able to kill an animal is a completely modern phenomenon.

 Modern humans tend to have higher levels of conciousness and cognitive development then our predecessors. This type of genetic fallacy is endemic in these conversations.

Your basically rationalising all behaviours due to predecessors behaving this way at some time therefore all equatable

Thats like arguing its perfectly fine for an adult to shit his pants put it in his hands and throw it at people, cos babies do it

[Clarence]

Vegans are not vegan for ethic or moral reasons. They are vegan - and advocate for veganism - for and foremost because of their own selfishness. A lot of them are vegan because they can't stand seeing the suffering of animals, so they want to reduce the amount of animal suffering in order to suffer less themselves. If they didn't have that sensitivity in themselves in the first place, they wouldn't care as much as they do.

So I think that "ethics" and "moral" come second in most people's process to become vegan and advocate for veganism. Those are the arguments they put forth in order to attempt converting people to their cause. But what came first was their own sensitivity to animal suffering - and so their own suffering in regard to it.

In a sense, they got "trapped" in making the connection between the food they eat and the animals that suffer for it… and so they want the rest of the world to make that connection in order to reduce their suffering alongside with the suffering of animals.

They are pretty biased because they are sensitive to that particular form of suffering the most while there are all kinds of suffering around for which they do not advocate as much for or at all for. Many vegans have their mind focused on that one thing only and they feel like they have to fight for it. But their attitude is far often too radical and enforcing. They're missing a larger perspective of what they are doing and they don't have the ability to really see from the perspective of the non-vegans.

That doesn't help their talk because enforcing their view onto others doesn't work. In the end, people won't become vegan for moral reasons, they will become vegan if they resonate with veganism (with this particular "moral issue") at a much deeper level that.

Plus, veganism for the entire world will likely never be possible, and it would likely never be a fully viable option (one simple reason being that many people actually need animal products to be healthy, another reason being that the cereal or fruit industry also kills millions of insects and animals for their production). Obviously, lots of progress can be made for the animals and the planet… but the fully vegan approach likely isn't the best option anyway.

[bambi]

5 minutes ago, Clarence said:

Vegans are not vegan for ethic or moral reasons. They are vegan - and advocate for veganism - for and foremost because of their own selfishness. A lot of them are vegan because they can't stand seeing the suffering of animals, so they want to reduce the amount of animal suffering in order to suffer less themselves. If they didn't have that sensitivity in themselves in the first place, they wouldn't care as much as they do.

So I think that "ethics" and "moral" come second in most people's process to become vegan and advocate for veganism. Those are the arguments they put forth in order to attempt converting people to their cause. But what came first was their own sensitivity to animal suffering - and so their own suffering in regard to it.

In a sense, they got "trapped" in making the connection between the food they eat and the animals that suffer for it… and so they want the rest of the world to make that connection in order to reduce their suffering alongside with the suffering of animals.

They are pretty biased because they are sensitive to that particular form of suffering the most while there are all kinds of suffering around for which they do not advocate as much for or at all for. Many vegans have their mind focused on that one thing only and they feel like they have to fight for it. But their attitude is far often too radical and enforcing. They're missing a larger perspective of what they are doing and they don't have the ability to really see from the perspective of the non-vegans.

That doesn't help their talk because enforcing their view onto others doesn't work. In the end, people won't become vegan for moral reasons, they will become vegan if they resonate with veganism (with this particular "moral issue") at a much deeper level that.

Plus, veganism for the entire world will likely never be possible, and it would likely never be a fully viable option (one simple reason being that many people actually need animal products to be healthy, another reason being that the cereal or fruit industry also kills millions of insects and animals for their production). Obviously, lots of progress can be made for the animals and the planet… but the fully vegan approach likely isn't the best option anyway.

Modern industrial farming is probably one of the biggest travesties of humanity and sentience. We arent talkng about hunting wld free animals, we are talkng about systemic organised cruelty and toture on huge scales.

[Clarence]

@bambi Yes, I know.

Edited May 23 by Clarence

[bambi]

1 minute ago, Clarence said:

Yes, I know.

Ah sorry thought you were discouning the seirousness or significance of it, or rationalising it away as a arbitrary vegan bias

 

[Basman]

13 minutes ago, bambi said:

 Modern humans tend to have higher levels of conciousness and cognitive development then our predecessors. This type of genetic fallacy is endemic in these conversations.

Your basically rationalising all behaviours due to predecessors behaving this way at some time therefore all equatable

Thats like arguing its perfectly fine for an adult to shit his pants put it in his hands and throw it at people, cos babies do it

There's nothing in nature that says its wrong to fling poo at people. Morals are not inherently self-evident as they are mental constructions reflecting your particular survival situation.

Modern humans ARE in a sense spoiled and out of touch with raw survival. You don't see people in tribal societies acting squeamish when they suffocate their goat to death for dinner.

Empathy is a first world problem.

[Leo Gura]

58 minutes ago, bambi said:

Why is being vegan due to wanting to minimize animal suffering not a good thing? Why isnt wanting to reduce suffering for all sentient entities, a good thing. Or at least unneccasary suffering?

At the very least factory farming and animal cruelty should be minimized surely lol

I never said it was a bad thing.

But moralizing to others becomes a trap.

When you reify your judgments and moral outrage that becomes an existential-level mistake which limits the development of your mind.

[bambi]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I never said it was a bad thing.

But moralizing to others becomes a trap.

When you reify your judgments and moral outrage that becomes an existential-level mistake which limits the development of your mind.

Sure everyone is free to do as they want. 

But in the context of creating a better planet, better society and better future, minimzing unneccasary suffering, especially animal suffering in the context of food, comes pretty high on the list

Consdering more peoples suffering at the consequence of your actions is just a higher perspective imo, its a higher level of morality and higher level of being and living

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, bambi said:

Sure everyone is free to do as they want. 

But in the context of creating a better planet, better society and better future, minimzing unneccasary suffering, especially animal suffering in the context of food, comes pretty high on the list

Consdering more peoples suffering at the consequence of your actions is just a higher perspective imo, its a higher level of morality and higher level of being and living

There are what we could call stages of moral development which addresses what you are saying.

A vegan is at a higher level of moral development than a rapist. But then there are even higher levels which I am trying to guide you towards.

Edited May 24 by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

9 hours ago, bambi said:

 Modern humans tend to have higher levels of conciousness and cognitive development then our predecessors. This type of genetic fallacy is endemic in these conversations.

What you are based on to affirm that ?

Will have the higher levels of conciousness the humans with the most efficient and healthy CNS, and who have matured the most.  In other words, people who grew up and evolved in the most natural environment.
Btw, most of the people here are basically provincial and/or have parents from rural origins.

I currently live in the "country" and that's actually where I see the most nuanced people.
It is in big cities, particularly Paris, that you start to come across babies weighing more than 70kg, whether in their way of reasoning or expressing themselves.

The evolution of consciousness is not a straight line from the barbarian to the puritan hippie evangelist vegan, it's just progress towards an increasingly nuanced, contextual paradigm that best meets our long-term needs.

10 hours ago, bambi said:

 

Your basically rationalising all behaviours due to predecessors behaving this way at some time therefore all equatable

Thats like arguing its perfectly fine for an adult to shit his pants put it in his hands and throw it at people, cos babies do it

Beggining the question + agression.

Please come back later when you will have something serious to add.

[Schizophonia]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

A vegan is at a higher level of moral development than a rapist. But then there are even higher levels which I am trying to guide you towards.

You can be completely stupid and stage red, but be vegan through theological bias, hypersensitivity or whatever.

You can be very aware, intelligent, but be completely sociopathic.

[Jannes]

I have come to this conclusion so far. You can be vegan for many reasons. Loving animals can be a legit reason to be a vegan but very few or maybe even no vegan is vegan completely because of this, most are because of moral reasons. 

Moral development can only prosper in healthy and loving circumstances so it's very elitist and even selfish when vegans moralize it to other people and therefore has a counterproductive effect. The more morally developed you are the more your love/care expands in the universe. 

[Schizophonia]

11 minutes ago, Jannes said:

I have come to this conclusion so far. You can be vegan for many reasons. Loving animals can be a legit reason to be a vegan but very few or maybe even no vegan is vegan completely because of this, most are because of moral reasons.

 

Me, i like grasshoppers

12 minutes ago, Jannes said:

 

Moral development can only prosper in healthy and loving circumstances so it's very elitist and even selfish when vegans moralize it to other people and therefore has a counterproductive effect. The more morally developed you are the more your love/care expands in the universe. 

All of that is a circular reasoning perched in your imagination, it doesn't have a actual virtual meaning. 

[UnbornTao]

 

Edited May 25 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

Debating veganism is generally like shooting fish in a barrel (see what I did there? ) from the perspective of the vegan. But like you're saying, it's generally best when the person holding the gun is not batshit insane.

Edited May 24 by Carl-Richard