“But, the phenomenon of animal crackers remains problematic and part of a wider culture of speciesism.”

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

“It can only be positive to desist from representing non-human animals as imprisoned by humans,” says Matthew Cole, a sociology lecturer at The Open University in the United Kingdom, of Nabisco’s recent decision to remove animal cage imagery. “But, the phenomenon of animal crackers remains problematic and part of a wider culture of speciesism.”

This is a lesson, these sociologists strongly urge, that we should stop feeding our youth (or munching on, ourselves). “Children should be taught to respect other animals,” adds David A. Nibert, a vegan activist and sociology professor at Wittenberg University. “Eating their forms as crackers is just another step in the socialization process that accustoms children to exploitation.”

But if animal crackers encourage exploitation because of their recognizable shapes, should we be thinking twice about other foods? Where do photo cakes fit in? What does this say about— gasp—people who eat gingerbread men?

“Human-shaped cookies and crackers,” notes Wrenn, “are usually generic forms. If they were designed to specifically resemble Jewish persons or African Americans and were marketed to White children, we can perhaps recognize the ideological problem with animal crackers being marketed to human children in an anthropocentric society that engages in widescale, systematic violence against animals.”

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 3 December 2018 00:21 (eleven months ago) link

i like to bite their heads off first

j., Monday, 3 December 2018 00:26 (eleven months ago) link

How do they feel about jelly babies?

biliares now living will never buey (Noodle Vague), Monday, 3 December 2018 01:15 (eleven months ago) link

There seems to have been an epidemic of You'll Never Believe What Those Crazy Vegans Are Saying Now stories lately, I wonder what's going on there.

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 01:36 (eleven months ago) link

how do gummy worms fit into this picture? just because they represent annelids without recognizable hearts instead of charismatic megafauna is that a reason to happily chomp on them as if they di not feel pain?

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 3 December 2018 05:33 (eleven months ago) link

people are just mad at vegans because vegans are basically correct

global tetrahedron, Monday, 3 December 2018 06:35 (eleven months ago) link

vegans are basically correct bien pensant, according to the standards of thinking cherished by other vegans

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 3 December 2018 06:39 (eleven months ago) link

next up: kids shouldn't play with stuffed animals, it reinforces the problematic notion that animals exist purely for our entertainment

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 06:59 (eleven months ago) link

gummy bears are made of horse

brimstead, Monday, 3 December 2018 07:22 (eleven months ago) link

There seems to have been an epidemic of You'll Never Believe What Those Crazy Vegans Are Saying Now stories lately, I wonder what's going on there.

― Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 01:36 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what group, inc ilxors, doesnt do this with noteworthy outlier idiot opinions of other groups

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 10:42 (eleven months ago) link

Yes, but why vegans and why now? I think it started with that story about the editor of Waitrose's magazine having to resign having said something stupid about vegans, seems like there's been one a week since. So, for instance, we had the story about some group demanding the village of Wool change its name - which was a completely inaccurate account of what actually happened. There seems to be a narrative about vegans and, more loosely, animal rights campaigners getting uppity and throwing their weight around (insert jokey comment about vegans and weight here). Seems like a new Political Correctness Gone Mad battleground and, of course, after Brexit, the media won't have crazy EU directives to guffaw about anymore.

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:03 (eleven months ago) link

idk

doesnt seem to me like it ever went away nor that vegan campaigners ever got any better

possibly a uk coverage thing then?

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:04 (eleven months ago) link

Well, yes, it is a UK thing, sorry.

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:05 (eleven months ago) link

vegsit

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:06 (eleven months ago) link

everyone otm except these vegans

imago, Monday, 3 December 2018 11:12 (eleven months ago) link

These vegans are coming to a very logical conclusion from the notion that anthropocentrism is bad, and their consistency should be applauded. The centrist media is shocked because according to neoliberal centrism you're not supposed to actually believe what you say you believe in, but only put on your beliefs to the extent that they help you personally. These vegans refuse to reduce their personal choice to their personal lifes, like non-gluten-eaters for instance does.

The problem is, though, that anthropocentrism is good.

Frederik B, Monday, 3 December 2018 11:32 (eleven months ago) link

thats fair

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:41 (eleven months ago) link

death to em, obv

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:42 (eleven months ago) link

"anthropocentrism is good"
— hannibal lecter

mark s, Monday, 3 December 2018 11:52 (eleven months ago) link

if I could audiate such a thing - I'd be reading that thing in a Pathetic Sharks voice.

calzino, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:00 (eleven months ago) link

sad he was bullied for being "Asian", also sad he wasn't bullied for being an egg-headed Tory-boy wanker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46425044

Neil S, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:42 (eleven months ago) link

hah sorry wrong thread, xpost to Brit politics!

Neil S, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:44 (eleven months ago) link

Would u slap an animal cracker out of the hand of a starving child, would u

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Monday, 3 December 2018 12:49 (eleven months ago) link

Sajid's head is brought to you by acme Ostrich Eggs (suitable for vegans).

calzino, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:54 (eleven months ago) link

“It can only be positive to desist from representing non-human animals as imprisoned by humans,” says Matthew Cole, a sociology lecturer at The Open University in the United Kingdom, of Nabisco’s recent decision to remove animal cage imagery.

nabisco otm

We're in 2009—it's time to take risks, (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 3 December 2018 13:00 (eleven months ago) link

xp sad when we do it to ourselves calz

#bald #metoo

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 13:02 (eleven months ago) link

I'm not being baldist, I'm being both shapist and sizeist - which is also bad!

calzino, Monday, 3 December 2018 13:05 (eleven months ago) link

sincere apologies for making fun of Javid's shining pate

Neil S, Monday, 3 December 2018 13:16 (eleven months ago) link

There seems to have been an epidemic of You'll Never Believe What Those Crazy Vegans Are Saying Now stories lately, I wonder what's going on there

I think this is one of the periodic outbursts you see as something becomes more mainstream and ppl who haven't really thought about it seriously before look for ways of continuing not to

ogmor, Monday, 3 December 2018 13:20 (eleven months ago) link

this story is more about fringe academics in search of a thesis than it is about veganism afaict

my name is leee john, for we are many (NickB), Monday, 3 December 2018 13:29 (eleven months ago) link

(xxp) LOL yes. I keep think of 'devil dogs' though.

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 13:30 (eleven months ago) link

As a dietary vegan (I'm not throwing away my sheep hair sweaters or cow skin shoes, belts, or car upholstery), I thought the BBC comedy(?) Carnage: Swallowing the Past hit the right note.

Was also nice to see Yuval Noah Harari declaiming industrial animal agriculture as the holocaust of our day in his books. In terms of cultural impact, its as if Malcolm Gladwell were a good person.

Sanpaku, Monday, 3 December 2018 14:30 (eleven months ago) link

(insert jokey comment about vegans and weight here)

hello im vegan and i am obese, but i do get your joke

21st savagery fox (m bison), Monday, 3 December 2018 14:57 (eleven months ago) link

also this cookie ("biscuit") business is horseshit. ppl are no more socialized to eat animals by animal crackers than they are by vegan meat analogues (which are good and should be eaten.) but im p anthropocentric.

21st savagery fox (m bison), Monday, 3 December 2018 15:02 (eleven months ago) link

i think you could make a case that the concept of animal rights and many of the moral cases for vegetarianism/veganism come from an anthropocentric perspective

biliares now living will never buey (Noodle Vague), Monday, 3 December 2018 16:57 (eleven months ago) link

Countdown to MRAs making similar arguments against the consumption of penis-shaped pastas.

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Monday, 3 December 2018 17:03 (eleven months ago) link

anthropocentrism: things have human characteristics
animal rights thinkers (Peter Singer et al): there are no uniquely human characteristics

Sanpaku, Monday, 3 December 2018 17:17 (eleven months ago) link

being vegan and being anthropocentric are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. some people are vegan for environmental reasons -- reasons which, at their core, can stem from a desire for the indefinite perpetuation of human life. Also just because you value the rights of animals doesn't mean you value the rights of all living creatures equally. I think it's pretty understandable to be a firm proponent of the humane treatment of animals and industry reform while still putting more stock, relatively, in the plight of humans

boobie, Monday, 3 December 2018 17:18 (eleven months ago) link

i guess animals rights theory is obviously anthropocentric in that granting legal protection to the interests of non-human animals is rooted in abstract human concepts (exploitation, abuse, suffering, justice etc). is that what you mean? xps

my name is leee john, for we are many (NickB), Monday, 3 December 2018 17:20 (eleven months ago) link

Speaking of which.

https://wewastetime.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_7548.jpg

Um, I really have been tempted to gift these this holidays. $18.

Sanpaku, Monday, 3 December 2018 17:21 (eleven months ago) link

I've never heard dumber shit than when i was vegan and dumb people would find out about it

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Monday, 3 December 2018 17:33 (eleven months ago) link

strangely people are much less antagonistic now that i just don't eat meat. there's a demand for you to have an airtight philosophical justification when you're vegan that i guess people don't feel they require when they know that you're something as contradictory and obtuse as a vegetarian

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Monday, 3 December 2018 17:38 (eleven months ago) link

you need the eggs

j., Monday, 3 December 2018 17:49 (eleven months ago) link

If nothing else veganism is good news for writers of Why-Oh-Why thinkpieces in right wing rags.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/03/vegan-evangelists-need-stop-behaving-divine-ordinance-religious/

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 17:58 (eleven months ago) link

Nb this was posted by me as a waddayathink rather than a lol idiots

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 3 December 2018 21:02 (eleven months ago) link

Like I think these academics are probably answering the question 'what function does this representation of animals serve' rather than launching a movement against animal crackers. Although their responses still do tell a tale. Tail?

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 3 December 2018 21:05 (eleven months ago) link

For my part I find both the mainstreaming of veganism and the rhetoric against it ... symptomatic I suppose and both need a critical reading

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 3 December 2018 21:07 (eleven months ago) link

I have thought for some time that the people of tomorrow may possibly look back upon our zoos and factory farms with the same degree of saddened horror with which we look back upon numerous instances of our forebears' casual inhumanity towards their fellow humans but I have to say there's an almost entirely nonexistent likelihood that they will view our consumption of animal crackers as a significant factor or symptom of the issue at hand and a bunch of kids will probably laugh a lot at this article when they rediscover it in the year 2136.

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Monday, 3 December 2018 22:34 (eleven months ago) link

the song "animal crackers in my soup" always weirded me out cuz the only animal crackers i've ever encountered have actually been cookies

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 3 December 2018 22:43 (eleven months ago) link

...And?

I mean, I prefer to dump a handful of Chips Ahoy into my French onion, but to each their own.

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Monday, 3 December 2018 22:47 (eleven months ago) link

Hypocritical vegans protest animal crackers yet say NOTHING about Count Chocula.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 3 December 2018 22:53 (eleven months ago) link

xpost Ha, I just reread that Peanuts collection so I was thinking the same when this thread popped up.

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Monday, 3 December 2018 23:03 (eleven months ago) link

Have to say, the separation of food into permitted and not permitted that is inherent to veganism sort of betrays its deep roots in religious tradition. That and the wanting to live without cruelty, which to me seems like a transcendent desire, one that an actual human can never fulfill in this life.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 00:33 (eleven months ago) link

yeah its often, not always obv, of a piece with a "first do no harm" outlook that ...well ime only pretty well-off ppl or those getting by nicely without jobs can practically manage

puppy bash (darraghmac), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 00:36 (eleven months ago) link

On that note. Once upon a time, in the depths of unemployment, I found a purse left on a bus with fifty quid and a phone in it, because yes I did open it. Then I handed it in to the bus driver. Did not take the fifty or the phone. Was left with a lingering sense of shame at having looked in the purse to see if there was anything worth having. You are not supposed to look at other people's stuff and think about nicking it, whatever the context.

I have never quite been able to feel the same genuine, hammering shame over eating food made out of animals. Can certainly see the economic argument about the impact of e.g. cow farming on the environment; but in those cases where veganism says you should feel shame over eating a cheese sandwich ... that's where I start to get suspicious.

On the other hand, people in below the line comments often try to shame vegans for having principles, or for trying to engage with environmental problems, as if these are the worst of follies ... which also incurs my suspicions.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 00:56 (eleven months ago) link

snoopy never struck me as jainist

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:06 (eleven months ago) link

though he did suffer at the hands of a cat, and hanged out with birds a lot

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:06 (eleven months ago) link

some ape ex-predators sometimes forget we ourselves were reduced to walking convenience snacks for hundreds of millions of years, it's deep history reparation time and I'm all out of that insipid winter rabbit feed that fucking doesn't taste like bacon.

calzino, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:09 (eleven months ago) link

joeks of course.

calzino, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:10 (eleven months ago) link

but not wrong neither

puppy bash (darraghmac), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:20 (eleven months ago) link

That and the wanting to live without cruelty, which to me seems like a transcendent desire, one that an actual human can never fulfill in this life.

"telling the truth" and "not being thick" are transcendent desires in this sense. there is a sort of conceited narcissism to ideals and vows but they're useful.

seem to have lost sight of the fact that most people not eating meat will never be as well-off as anyone on ilx, and for lots of ppl a plant-based diet is a necessity rather than a conceit. by 'lots of ppl' I mean humanity as a whole, yeah

ogmor, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:45 (eleven months ago) link

The environmental problems that are caused by a human diet that includes animal products shares the same root cause as all other environmental problems, including, but not limited to pollution, extinction, and climate change: it's overpopulation and the accompanying appropriation of natural resources by an ever-growing number of humans. Veganism is at best a second or third order solution that may ameliorate, but cannot solve the problem. That requires a more radical approach.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:48 (eleven months ago) link

why improve when you can die? all hail the first order.

ogmor, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 02:09 (eleven months ago) link

I'm planning on dying.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 02:17 (eleven months ago) link

"telling the truth" and "not being thick" are transcendent desires in this sense. there is a sort of conceited narcissism to ideals and vows but they're useful.

Although it's possible to retain an awareness of one's self as a thick liar, whilst attempting to be intelligent and tell the truth; indeed retaining that awareness is arguably crucial to any truth seeking project. I agree with you about the usefulness of ideals, but their usefulness (or even just their inevitability?) doesn't always let them off the hook.

seem to have lost sight of the fact that most people not eating meat will never be as well-off as anyone on ilx, and for lots of ppl a plant-based diet is a necessity rather than a conceit. by 'lots of ppl' I mean humanity as a whole, yeah

Like arranged marriages, high rates of child mortality, and trepanning with rocks? Obviously those are all more or less malignant, whereas a plant based diet can be benign, controversial missing vitamins aside, but they are still necessities at certain levels of poverty and I wonder how much moral glamour necessity has when seen in full.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 14:20 (eleven months ago) link

what hook?

there is no q of glamour, i was just pointing out that not eating meat is not an abnormal phenomenon that requires special consideration

ogmor, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 14:39 (eleven months ago) link

might want to change "forced" for "arranged" there cardamon

biliares now living will never buey (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 14:45 (eleven months ago) link

Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations. pic.twitter.com/o67EbBA7H4

— PETA (@peta) December 4, 2018

j., Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:22 (eleven months ago) link

haha, perfect

jmm, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:36 (eleven months ago) link

Speciesism is such an absurd concept. Purest sophistry.

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:56 (eleven months ago) link

Like. You don’t even need “speciesism” as a concept to decide it’s immoral to eat animals! It’s a superfluous concept Peter effin Singer invented so he could trick a few more undergrads into thinking they are racist for eating hot dogs.

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:58 (eleven months ago) link

Basically I find any suggestion that nonhuman animals are interchangeable with humans as moral subjects to be offensive and also wrong.

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:59 (eleven months ago) link

so do i but possibly for a different reason, that our framework of moral subjectivity is a form of cruelty we should only inflict on ourselves

macropuente (map), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:06 (eleven months ago) link

i don't really think that just saying stuff.

also i really admire my vegan roommate, he never says anything about anyone else's diet.

macropuente (map), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:10 (eleven months ago) link

Yeah most vegans don’t bc most vegans like most people aren’t intrusive and judgmental

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:23 (eleven months ago) link

i tend toward both those qualities so i'm sure i'd be an insufferable vegan.

i should start evangelizing about the moral imperative of vasectomies irl

macropuente (map), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:34 (eleven months ago) link

It's weird to actively judge people based on what they decide is the kind of food they prefer to eat. (Well, maybe apart from cannibalism, but that's a very delicate subject.) This weirdness applies equally to judging vegans harshly simply for being vegans and to vegans judging omnivores harshly simply for being omnivores.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:37 (eleven months ago) link

Go with God

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:37 (eleven months ago) link

Well, maybe apart from cannibalism, but that's a very delicate subject.

and a very delicate prep job

HAHA

macropuente (map), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:41 (eleven months ago) link

the best thing about being vegan is i feel no guilt about calling my dogs shitheads to their face bc hey at least im not eating them

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:42 (eleven months ago) link

now before you precious dog lovers get up in arms about that, just remember that my dogs are shitheads

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:43 (eleven months ago) link

cats rule dogs drool

macropuente (map), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:51 (eleven months ago) link

cats are also bad

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 03:56 (eleven months ago) link

It's weird to actively judge people based on what they decide is the kind of food they prefer to eat.

Unless they crack open a plastic container of something vile-smelling on public transportation. Then you can judge away.

grawlix (unperson), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 14:58 (eleven months ago) link

i have a conservative friend who voted for evan mcmullin last election not trump but often we debate trump and the GOP because he argues that trump is neither explicitly, not obviously implicitly, racist and that the left uses idpol to discredit right-wing arguments without examining them on the merits etc aka a guy ilx would really enjoy. He's very bright so it's enjoyable to argue with him. Also, he believes that almost all moral issues are debatable but the one he thinks has the least credibility is the idea that humans can eat animals. He a staunch (tho not generally evangelizing) vegan, no leather, no eggs, etc. Last night we were chatting (bc I sent him that PETA tweet), and I argued that human capacity for morality or philosophy suggested that we're qualitatively different from the animals that we eat. He asked me if that means we can eat very young children. I argued that very young children have the potential to develop into humans who can think morally, but then he argued that fetuses can do the same and I'm pro choice. Anyway the conversation branched from there but I just wanted to introduce you all to my deep thinking hardcore vegan moderate Republican friend. He used to be a progressive when he was younger (he's in his late 40s now), and he says he once went to a liberal campus meeting where they were talking about the issues of the day (apartheid, civil rights, etc) and he raised animal rights and they blew him off and he feels like that's bc it was the one time they were forced to contend with their own oppressiveness. Anyway, I love eating meat it tastes great and the Bible says I can do it so I'm not worrying about it to much from a moral perspective, tho from a climate perspective as mentioned upthread animal farming does concern me. And it seems to be awfully cruel - we should be able to farm animals and not treat them like victims in a Saw flick.

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:13 (eleven months ago) link

nor* obviously

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:14 (eleven months ago) link

It's kind of miraculous that human beings are ever able to hold two or more ideas that don't inherently contradict one another. I mean, it doesn't happen often, but it's really something to behold when it does.

Mom's out working, for fulfillment (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:28 (eleven months ago) link

reading yr posts i am often struck with amazement that you can hold even one idea

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:31 (eleven months ago) link

the argument for human exceptionalism is normally based on consciousness rather than any particular intellectual tradition bc they're not v old old and most ppl before and since know little to nothing about them. modern western society has weird hangups and ideas around age, childhood & adulthood but what mordy's friend says abt kids seems obviously true. the sort of humanity ppl think of as being exceptional is transient, mutable and dynamic, ppl achieve and express it in different degrees, inconsistently and sometimes not really at all.

saying that it's only bad for humans to eat animals seems like another form of exceptionalism unless you condemn all carnivores and long for some pre-cambrian, prelapsarian idyll.

ogmor, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:34 (eleven months ago) link

-old, ho hum, you get the idea

ogmor, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:35 (eleven months ago) link

I'll confirm after I've returned from the hospital but I'm pretty sure that was a third-degree burn u just inflicted on me Mordy.

Mom's out working, for fulfillment (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:35 (eleven months ago) link

what I want to know is whether we're still allowed to wax the dolphin any more

Neil S, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:01 (eleven months ago) link

he says he once went to a liberal campus meeting where they were talking about the issues of the day (apartheid, civil rights, etc) and he raised animal rights and they blew him off and he feels like that's bc it was the one time they were forced to contend with their own oppressiveness

This is hilarious.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:43 (eleven months ago) link

did they even discriminate between animals of difft color/gender or was it all one big "not all hoomanz" handwave

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:47 (eleven months ago) link

intersectional veganism or bust

Frederik B, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:49 (eleven months ago) link

this is actually a really good book if you want to read about veganism and feminism:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839/

my name is leee john, for we are many (NickB), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:58 (eleven months ago) link

Mordy: Daniel 1:12-15. You'd be "handsomer and fatter" eating only pulses (food grown from seed).

Sanpaku, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:23 (eleven months ago) link

Pretty sure that’s about eating kosher food only not about eating vegetarian only

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:29 (eleven months ago) link

Sounds good if you want to be fat but fine.

Monica Kindle (Tom D.), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:30 (eleven months ago) link

lots of very left-wing people are very averse to veganism and get upset about it. my favourite one i ever got - and i never, ever proselytized when i was vegan - (obviously from a fucking white person) was some concern about it being a colonialist mindset because first nations peoples' traditional ways of life include hunting and fishing, using the whole animal etc. and the very obvious rejoinder was "you're white lol and I'm not telling indigenous people to stop their very responsible stewardship of their traditional lands i just think you, white person, should maybe consume less animal products"

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:33 (eleven months ago) link

Jim's rejoinder OTM. I have been a strict vegetarian for about a year and a half, now, for primarily ethical reasons, but the framework of "animal rights" is pretty suspect to me. As it's already been noted, it's not like animals (or humans) have had a guarantee of rights for the vast bulk of history. The only coherent justification is that animals can suffer, and needless suffering is bad, so maybe we should cool it with anything that increases animal suffering, so far as we can. I do think it's possible to farm animals for livestock without unnecessary suffering, but I doubt it's possible to do at the current scale of factory farming.

days of being riled (zchyrs), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:03 (eleven months ago) link

he believes that almost all moral issues are debatable but the one he thinks has the least credibility is the idea that humans can eat animals.

There are many lines of reasoning that can be applied here, but the one to dig into, based on your representations of his arguments, would be to separate the incidental aspects of eating animals, which are almost all of the aspects alluded to by vegans when claiming a moral position (e.g. oppression or cruelty), from the primary aspects of eating animals (introducing some part of that animal into your digestive system). This also allows a separate inquiry into other vegan tenets, such as not wearing leather.

Once you have unpacked each of the components of our relationship with animals, you can evaluate the morality of each component more clearly and develop a more complete and rational moral philosophy.

btw, I would argue that the concept of "rights" requires mutuality. Animals must respect and agree to observe all fundamental rights in regard to humans and to one another before it is possible to speak of the rights we are required to respect and observe in regard to them. Such 'natural' rights exist, but animal rights activists tend to claim many rights that do not fit this criterion.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:33 (eleven months ago) link

btw, I would argue that the concept of "rights" requires mutuality. Animals must respect and agree to observe all fundamental rights in regard to humans and to one another before it is possible to speak of the rights we are required to respect and observe in regard to them. Such 'natural' rights exist, but animal rights activists tend to claim many rights that do not fit this criterion.

Exactly. Animals eat each other - therefore, it's OK for me to eat animals. (And if I do something stupid that winds up with me being eaten by an animal, I have to accept that outcome with relative equanimity.)

grawlix (unperson), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:36 (eleven months ago) link

Exactly. My own qualm has never been eating animals per se, it's rather the treating them like commodities first and sentient beings far second that gives me moral pause.

days of being riled (zchyrs), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:40 (eleven months ago) link

btw, I would argue that the concept of "rights" requires mutuality. Animals must respect and agree to observe all fundamental rights in regard to humans and to one another before it is possible to speak of the rights we are required to respect and observe in regard to them. Such 'natural' rights exist, but animal rights activists tend to claim many rights that do not fit this criterion.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:33 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're asking for mutuality from beings not able to understand the concept, that makes no sense

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:41 (eleven months ago) link

break down into delicious/cute

if both, the ratio comes into play

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:41 (eleven months ago) link

i think the idea of natural rights is the more suspect bit of this line of thinking

biliares now living will never buey (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:42 (eleven months ago) link

btw, I would argue that the concept of "rights" requires mutuality.

if you read my entire post you'd understand why this is insane being as how it would allow for eating human babies

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:42 (eleven months ago) link

it also would allow eating any one of us if we had a major brain injury

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:43 (eleven months ago) link

if you read my entire post you'd understand why this is insane being as how it would allow for eating human babies

And?

grawlix (unperson), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:43 (eleven months ago) link

I'm not sure rights do require mutuality: partly because we consider babies, the severely disabled etc. to have rights; but also because I don't think that if someone does not return your recognition of a right it would justify your abusing their rights.

And as for 'animals eat each other, so it's OK for me' - that's such a silly argument.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:44 (eleven months ago) link

This is maybe tangential, but I think that maybe a useful question in this context is whether all moral obligations necessarily involve (or need to involve) the concept of rights.

days of being riled (zchyrs), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:46 (eleven months ago) link

I agree I think moral obligation is key rights are a distraction

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:51 (eleven months ago) link

I think moral obligations and proscriptions can be understood and expressed as rights.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:52 (eleven months ago) link

I think your analysis that mutuality would deprive babies of their right not to be eaten is overly hasty and suffers from a shallow evaluation of the merits of that argument. The 'right' not to be eaten is not a 'natural' right of human babies. It is a social right, granted within the human community by mutual assent and accord. It is quite obvious that babies are among the favorite foods in nature.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:53 (eleven months ago) link

But don't you then end up believing that people in societies which don't assent to those rights don't have them? It's an acceptable position, of course, but it seems undesirable to say that slaves in the C18th southern US didn't have a right to life and freedom.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:56 (eleven months ago) link

there are no moral obligations hows that

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:57 (eleven months ago) link

I think your analysis that mutuality would deprive babies of their right not to be eaten is overly hasty and suffers from a shallow evaluation of the merits of that argument. The 'right' not to be eaten is not a 'natural' right of human babies. It is a social right, granted within the human community by mutual assent and accord. It is quite obvious that babies are among the favorite foods in nature.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:53 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so if i come across a tribe in the jungle that practices slavery and cannibalism and rape of captives etc. then i can just do that to them?

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:58 (eleven months ago) link

yes

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:58 (eleven months ago) link

It's a popular, but wrong, opinion, yes. (x-posts)

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:58 (eleven months ago) link

"can"

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:59 (eleven months ago) link

It's a slippery slope from banning animal crackers to banning meatloaf babies

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/b0/96/9e/b0969ece037b90c99394d57150fd5679--cake-wrecks-baby-cakes.jpg

mick signals, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:07 (eleven months ago) link

Looks delicious...

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:20 (eleven months ago) link

it seems undesirable to say that slaves in the C18th southern US didn't have a right to life and freedom.

The rights of slaves to life and freedom were argued into existence. Once the abolitionists succeeded in establishing the grounds for the argument upon whether God's commandments, as conceived by the Christian religion, required its adherents to treat slaves with a love equal to their love for themselves, then it became a theological battle over what God's law required of Christians.

The most acceptable formulation of this would be that the right of slaves in the C18th southern US to life and freedom were unrecognized. Once we emerged from our state of confusion, those rights were recognized and became effective as well as implicit. But that just disguises the theological content of the argument.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:21 (eleven months ago) link

I think they had those rights already, but unrecognised. And those rights emerge from reason, in a Kantian manner. They were always there.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:25 (eleven months ago) link

I think the lyrics of The Battle Hymn of the Republic reflect a truer image of the abolitionist mindset than the writings of Kant.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:29 (eleven months ago) link

I'm not saying Kant was an abolitionist - he got lots wrong in his extention of moral oligations/proscriptions. Korsgaard does really interesting stuff on animal rights from a Kantian perspective.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:35 (eleven months ago) link

(Which Kant obviously didn't have in mind)

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:35 (eleven months ago) link

I'm fairly impressed that a thread which began discussing how problematic animal crackers are managed to go so much downhill. Who'd have thought it could sink so low?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:38 (eleven months ago) link

so if i come across a tribe in the jungle that practices slavery and cannibalism and rape of captives etc. then i can just do that to them?

If you have no moral philosophy, then nothing either internal or external would prevent you from enslaving, raping, or eating members of that tribe, if you had it in your power to do so.

If you are a moral philosopher and accept the tribe as being equally as human as those you have granted the right to not be enslaved, raped or eaten, then your philosophy requires you to fall back exclusively on your own right to self-defense so that you may freely resist being enslaved, raped or eaten without imposing those outcomes on this hypothetical tribe.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 20:45 (eleven months ago) link

there are no moral obligations hows that

there are moral obligations to the same extent that there are legal obligations. it's a personal choice to follow them, but if you choose not to the community may punish you. of course the legal community's punishments are stricter and more coercively applied than the moral community's.

Toss another shrimpl air on the bbqbbq (ledge), Thursday, 6 December 2018 07:52 (eleven months ago) link

FREDERIK OTM

GET IT TOGETHER ILX

j., Thursday, 6 December 2018 08:00 (eleven months ago) link

Basically I find any suggestion that nonhuman animals are interchangeable with humans as moral subjects to be offensive and also wrong.


well yeah that’s what a speciesist would say

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Friday, 7 December 2018 02:35 (eleven months ago) link

I'm stuck on the pure veganism people due to a friend explaining that a local dude who is semi-prominent in some circles, who talks about the morality of veganism, going on about how he shouldn't need health insurance. Because he's not old, vegan, and has a really good motorcycle insurance policy. So there's no chance he'd have a need for a lot of medical spending.

I mean ideally 99% of people with health insurance would have that profile, that's why it's insurance but... mote in my brother's eye etc

mh, Friday, 7 December 2018 02:41 (eleven months ago) link

just for that i would commit acts of violence against him, but thats just me

21st savagery fox (m bison), Friday, 7 December 2018 02:42 (eleven months ago) link

lots of very left-wing people are very averse to veganism and get upset about it. my favourite one i ever got - and i never, ever proselytized when i was vegan - (obviously from a fucking white person) was some concern about it being a colonialist mindset because first nations peoples' traditional ways of life include hunting and fishing, using the whole animal etc. and the very obvious rejoinder was "you're white lol and I'm not telling indigenous people to stop their very responsible stewardship of their traditional lands i just think you, white person, should maybe consume less animal products"


OTM but you can also assure them that late capitalism uses the whole animal much more efficiently than First Nations people who lack jello and crayons etc etc

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Friday, 7 December 2018 02:43 (eleven months ago) link

look if you're not eating the tongue and the cheeks then kill your children then yourself

biliares now living will never buey (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 02:46 (eleven months ago) link

xxp but he is vegan, which clears his moral concerns including social interests lol

mh, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:55 (eleven months ago) link

xp aside: Most of the reason I have health insurance is so that I don't get charged the cash payer price. Emergency rooms in the US, especially, will demand charges drawn from thin air for anyone who doesn't have corporate negotiators working on their behalf.

Sanpaku, Friday, 7 December 2018 06:47 (eleven months ago) link

do any noninsured e.r. bills get paid though?

rip van wanko, Friday, 7 December 2018 06:57 (eleven months ago) link

^^^

the "I'm a very responsible person" argument completely fails when you realize insurance (in the ideal case, admittedly our insurance system is really broken) is there for the cases where you'd really have no way to pay. like, surprise! you're the one 35 year old in hundreds of thousands who has some weird cancer and treating it costs $$$

or you get hit by a car and no one can find the driver, or... really a million possibilities

mh, Friday, 7 December 2018 15:00 (eleven months ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.