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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (144 of them)

death to em, obv

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 11:42 (six months ago) Permalink

"anthropocentrism is good"
— hannibal lecter

mark s, Monday, 3 December 2018 11:52 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

hah sorry wrong thread, xpost to Brit politics!

Neil S, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:44 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

calzino, Monday, 3 December 2018 12:54 (six months ago) Permalink

“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 (six months ago) Permalink

xp sad when we do it to ourselves calz

#bald #metoo

puppy bash (darraghmac), Monday, 3 December 2018 13:02 (six months ago) Permalink

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

calzino, Monday, 3 December 2018 13:05 (six months ago) Permalink

sincere apologies for making fun of Javid's shining pate

Neil S, Monday, 3 December 2018 13:16 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

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

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 (six months ago) Permalink

(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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

you need the eggs

j., Monday, 3 December 2018 17:49 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

...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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

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

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

snoopy never struck me as jainist

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:06 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

joeks of course.

calzino, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:10 (six months ago) Permalink

but not wrong neither

puppy bash (darraghmac), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 01:20 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

ogmor, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 02:09 (six months ago) Permalink

I'm planning on dying.

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

"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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:51 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

there are no moral obligations hows that

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:57 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

yes

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:58 (six months ago) Permalink

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

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

"can"

puppy bash (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 19:59 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

Looks delicious...

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

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

(Which Kant obviously didn't have in mind)

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

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 (six months ago) 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?

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

FREDERIK OTM

GET IT TOGETHER ILX

j., Thursday, 6 December 2018 08:00 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

mh, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:55 (six months ago) Permalink

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 (six months ago) Permalink

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

rip van wanko, Friday, 7 December 2018 06:57 (six months ago) Permalink

^^^

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 (six months ago) Permalink


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