How do you Justify consuming Animal Products?

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, karltiboleng said:

@Scholar I dont wish to debate with you anymore.... you are just rehashing the same points over and over again. Try to see your own shortcomings, and I will do the same. Peace

This is what I mean. There is no substance here, no contending with what I was writing. An easy dismissal, a referral to hypocrisy ("But you are deluded yourself, AND IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT YOUR OWN DELUSION I WON'T LOOK AT MINE!") and the ego can with satisfaction avoid the self-reflection that is needed.

Notice that there is no curiousity of my position, of why I hold my position, of the meaning of my position and so forth. There is no desire to absord information, because identity is being threatened.

 

Now, I would say I did not act in a way to change their mind, I was not effectively doing that because of how confrontational I was. But for anyone reading, notice the dynamics at play, it is very apparent from an outsiders perspective.

[B_Naz]

@Serotoninluv Protein shakes are great, couldn't meet my goals without them

 

3 minutes ago, SgtPepper said:

 

 2. Plants are living things too, so no matter what, you will eat something that was living.

We're living things too right? We're going to be eaten by the Earth and bacteria

[karltiboleng]

@Scholar Sure, get a third party's view. I already at length described why your position is untenable but you are too closed off to see that. I emphasise that I am not dismissing the position of veganism, but I do not dismiss opposing views either. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

@Serotoninluv Protein shakes are great, couldn't meet my goals without them

Veggie patties have about the same amount of protein as meat patties. There is no need to eat meat to reach your protein goals. You can choose to eat meat, yet it is not necessary to meet your protein needs if you live in a developed country. 

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, karltiboleng said:

@Scholar Sure, get a third party's view. I already at length described why your position is untenable but you are too closed off to see that. I emphasise that I am not dismissing the position of veganism, but I do not dismiss opposing views either. 

You avoided everything I was pointing at and reduced this discussion to the View of Veganism, rather than the values and the importance of Value evolution and how people like you use moral relativism to justify their VALUES not merely their VIEWS.

How do you think consciousness works? I can say I deny all dogma and that I hold no position and I become completely nihilistic towards everything and just say "All perspectives are valid!" while profiding absurd arguments that do not apply, and can then call myself "high consciousness" and dismiss everyone who criticizes this position by saying "You are too closeminded to see what I mean!"? You are literally doing it, you are the Frankenstein. You have a view not because your values truly reflect that view, but because you value being the person who would hold such values and views. You want to be that "High consciousness person", not for actual curiousity, but because you want to be better. This is not yellow, this is orange.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scholar

[B_Naz]

@Serotoninluv Oh yeah actually I've seen this before. You can even eat them raw lol, I should actually look into these at my local market, thanks for the suggestion 

[SgtPepper]

6 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

We're living things too right? We're going to be eaten by the Earth and bacteria

I wouldn't have it any other way! When I die, my body can't go to waste! 

FEED THE MAGGOTS. 

But seriously, all life consumes life. 

 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, karltiboleng said:

I know it sounds radical, but all ideology is ultimately untenable. The pre/trans fallacy is also prevalent here. You have to appreciate your underlying assumptions. Why is eating animals bad? Why is eating insects not bad? Why are eating vegetables not bad? Slavery was completely acceptable as a social system just awhile back. Today's system is just slavery manifested in different ways. 

I emphasise that I do not advocate factory farming in any way. 

This is taking a meta view to all relativistic positions. This has value in one context, yet lacks value in another context. It can be a form of bypassing. This is not the "pre/trans fallacy" in this context. 

An alcoholic father that beats his wife and children may tell his wife "I think I am a good father. Calling me a "bad" father is your relative opinion. Don't be dogmatic about it. My opinion that I am a good father carries as much weight as your opinion that I am a bad father". . . In one context this is true, however in another context it is nonsense and can be used to bypass and rationalize behavior that harms others. (And yes, I understand that "harm" is also a relative term). 

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, SgtPepper said:

I wouldn't have it any other way! When I die, my body can't go to waste! 

FEED THE MAGGOTS. 

But seriously, all life consumes life. 

 

 

@Serotoninluv Thank god you are here, the voice of calm reaso.

[Forestluv]

@B_Naz I'm not pure vegan. I'm just vegetarian and eat fish every once in a while. Yet, I try to reduce my meat and animal product consumption. In particular, I really like cheese and fake cheese is nowhere near the real thing. I realize by eating cheese I am still contributing to inhumane treatment of animals, yet I'm still in the process of evolving. As well, I tried going 100% vegan for a while and I found it difficult. I know these are selfish reasons, yet that's just where I'm at now in my development. 

6 minutes ago, SgtPepper said:

But seriously, all life consumes life. 

Yet humans don't need to torture life before consuming life. Hopefully, we rise to a higher conscious level. 

For me, there is a difference between consuming the life of a plant and consuming a chicken that has led a life of pain and suffering. 

[Derek White]

I found a blog post of Leo explaining how enlightenment is different from being a good person. I’m posting this because I agree with him and he explains it better than me. It might help some of you to leave your ideology behind. Veganism is a question in the relative domain of life.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/my-critique-of-zizeks-critique-of-buddhism

Someone said earlier that other’s suffering is also your suffering. It’s not about ending suffering but “suffering more mindfully” as Leo said (not believing him but agreeing with him because it makes sense to me). Just like Jesus demonstrated on the cross.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Derek White said:

Veganism is a question in the relative domain of life.

As I described above, going the relativist route has truth - yet is often used to bypass and rationalize behavior.

If you go a pure relativist route, abusing children is no different than not abusing children. Both are relative and the both are the same in one context. However, this does not mean we don't have values in a relative world. Even though I know that abusing children and not abusing children are the same in one context, I don't use this as a rationale to abuse children. My value is to not abuse children. 

This is a very common dynamic for minds learning about relativism. The mind can get into an "anything goes because everything is relative" mindset. 

[karltiboleng]

12 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is taking a meta view to all relativistic positions. This has value in one context, yet lacks value in another context. It can be a form of bypassing. This is not the "pre/trans fallacy" in this context. 

An alcoholic father that beats his wife and children may tell his wife "I think I am a great father. Calling me a "bad" father is your relative opinion. Don't be dogmatic about it. My opinion that I am a good father carries as much weight as your opinion that I am a bad father". . . In one context this is true, however in another context it is nonsense and can be used to bypass and rationalize behavior that harms others. (And yes, I understand that "harm" is also a relative term). 

Yeah definitely it can be used dangerously, in the wrong context. But it still holds that the view of "a bad father" is relative. Who is it bad for? The wife and children. Why? Because they feel pain and this undermines their survival. Is this bad in their view? Probably. But not absolutely. Is it bad in the eyes of the father? He probably, in some twisted way, believes that beating his wife and kids will teach them valuable lessons. If one advocates for a position, this doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't considered opposing views (although most probably don't...)

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, karltiboleng said:

Yeah definitely it can be used dangerously, in the wrong context. But it still holds that the view of "a bad father" is relative. Who is it bad for? The wife and children. Why? Because they feel pain and this undermines their survival. Is this bad in their view? Probably. But not absolutely. Is it bad in the eyes of the father? He probably, in some twisted way, believes that beating his wife and kids will teach them valuable lessons. If one advocates for a position, this doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't considered opposing views (although most probably don't...)

I've found it super easy to conflate relative and absolute. Yes, what is considered "bad" is relative and there is singularity of all relativity as One Absolute. This can allow for openness to various views, yet this doesn't mean that all relative views are equal in another context. In practicality, we cannot live in a fully nondual state without distinctions. There is both formless and form - and a continuous interplay between the two. What would actually being in a permanent nondual state look like? Sitting as emptiness all day and night without making any distinctions? Nondual vs dual is itself a duality.  

If I was sitting with a family in which the alcoholic father was beating his wife and kids, I would understand the relativity of his view and from his perspective he is relatively true. I can also see how he has been conditioned and cannot help but to act the way he acts. However, I would not take a "both sides" neutral position. To me, acting in a loving way would be to promote healing within the family (including the father). 

If you saw an drunk man beating a young child in the street, would you take a "both sides" position and think "the father and child both have a relative view and neither is better". Would you stand by and watch the child being beaten? If you intervened, would you help the father in beating the child? Or would you try to help the child? If you chose to help the child? Why?

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, karltiboleng said:

Yeah definitely it can be used dangerously, in the wrong context. But it still holds that the view of "a bad father" is relative. Who is it bad for? The wife and children. Why? Because they feel pain and this undermines their survival. Is this bad in their view? Probably. But not absolutely. Is it bad in the eyes of the father? He probably, in some twisted way, believes that beating his wife and kids will teach them valuable lessons. If one advocates for a position, this doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't considered opposing views (although most probably don't...)

Yes, but I think this does not add a lot of value to this discussion, because we all have watched Leo's videos and we all know this. And You have not shown how this is even relevant in this specific context. To me it seems like it is a knee-jerk bypassing. To me, it right now is being used dangerously, not just potentially, but in actuality.

 

If you saw Naz's arguing that they want to holocaust the jews, and then you saw someone disagreeing with that and calling it low consciousness, would you then go to them and say "But you know, all morality is relative! Don't be so unconscious jew-defender!". This is completely backwards and inappropriate. Why are you focusing so much on the unconsciousness of the vegan but not focusing at all on the unconsciousness of the meat-eater, who with his choices his inflicting suffering and destruction beyond comprehension?

What you focus on, what you perceive as a threat is determined by your identity. What do you think does your focus tell you about your own identity? Do you bring this topic up in every moralistic discussion? In every political discussion? In every discussion that is about the relative domain?

Why do you bring it up here, in the vegan discussion? Why do you gear it towards the vegan side of the argument? Does the world really need more excuses and defense of the carnist position? Is that really the position you hold? That vegans are the problem and that the meat-eaters need to be protected?

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scholar

[SgtPepper]

@Scholar I don't justify it through lions though. All humans & animals eat meat presently and historically!

@Serotoninluv I agree. It would be very great if the government enacted laws that would make animal farming more humane and sustainable by making their process as transparent as possible, penalties for torturing or abusing animals, etc. Ideally, I would prefer to source animal foods from local farms. At the moment, my family buys high quality eggs and meat, so it is sourced from chickens or cows that are not caged in all day.

Edited March 9, 2020 by SgtPepper

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, SgtPepper said:

All humans & animals eat meat presently and historically!

All animals do not eat meat. 

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

All animals do not eat meat. 

He will probably send you this:

And claim that it's evidence that all beings need meat. That's the kind of person you are talkng to, just so you know.

[Derek White]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

As I described above, going the relativist route has truth - yet is often used to bypass and rationalize behavior.

If you go a pure relativist route, abusing children is no different than not abusing children. Both are relative and the both are the same in one context. However, this does not mean we don't have values in a relative world. Even though I know that abusing children and not abusing children are the same in one context, I don't use this as a rationale to abuse children. My value is to not abuse children. 

Great, I agree ???

But OP was mixing spirituality with values so that’s why I was saying it.

I can get behind more humane ways of killing, sustainability and boycotting some animals all together.

I think a better way of promoting veganism is to introduce better vegetarian food and to reduce the population. It’s sort of like how raising people’s economic status is a better strategy than convincing people of not having babies for population control.

Also, this is such a first world problem. Third world is not thinking about better treatment of animals except in the context of religion and sustainability. I think we still have a long wag to go before we can seriously push veganism. You will likely never convince a Pakistani, whose diet contains lots of meat, to give it up because of compassion. I just don’t feel right pushing too heavily for animal rights when humans are treated so poorly. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Derek White

[SgtPepper]

@Scholar  thanks for posting it! I never said they need to eat meat. I am just stating that they do eat meat when it is available. Mammals have different stomachs and some are better able to digest and extract nutrients from plants. 

@Serotoninluv If you include insects in your definition of meat, I'd say that covers all the basis. When I look up "animals that do not eat meat" on google, elephants are first one. Furthermore, googling elephants, google says they are strict herbivores, but it is possible to find them eating insects and here is another video of them eating fish.

 

So they are at the least capable and appear to desire it if they are hungry. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by SgtPepper