“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)

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 (eight months ago) link

Go with God

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

cats rule dogs drool

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

cats are also bad

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

nor* obviously

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

-old, ho hum, you get the idea

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

intersectional veganism or bust

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

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

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

Sounds good if you want to be fat but fine.

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

break down into delicious/cute

if both, the ratio comes into play

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

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

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

there are no moral obligations hows that

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

yes

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

"can"

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

Looks delicious...

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


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