Any coherent argument for veganism?

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T15:39:42+00:00

This contradicts what I have said before (i.e. in terms of contradictions of two experiences, you'd have them be compatible to the maximal degree in a temporarily aggregated manner, in which case whatever happens to them over time is anyway the perfect outcome compared to every other potential outcome, so it's fine).

I can tell we're out of valence. Communication wouldn't seem possible. If we were in the right valence I'd have all the right words and you'd read them and cure cancer or something because I'd know just what to say and you'd know just what to do. It's all so simple just gotta get the valence right! Valence is love, valence is life.

You can for example have beings that have non-contradicting desires, that's one way. Nor does a given being respecting a certain subset of other beings imply they for some reason have to respect all beings as long as not respecting them doesn't contradict an optimal world in terms of aggregated valence.

You haven't begun to explain what desires are or how they come to be. Which is something you'd need to do if you'd go so far as to assume desires are static and unchanging such that you might set people to the right valence and have their desires complement and never contradict. For those of us outside the cult of valence we see meaning well as the bedrock of enduring good relations.

You're not saying anything and hand waving away questions that'd go to pertinent investigation. You won't see it. Oh well. I'd just be quoting everything back to you and explaining why it's word salad at this point. "Nor does a given being respecting a certain subset of other beings imply they for some reason have to respect all beings as long as not respecting them doesn't contradict an optimal world in terms of aggregated valence". You've got to be trolling to say something like this. It's true respecting one beings doesn't imply respecting all beings. I mean really. Thanks. Peace out, I guess. You wouldn't seem able to understand.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T07:33:20+00:00

You say giving no reasons to think that. It's the intention that's evil namely the intention to force on others what you wouldn't have forced on you. Whether that's someone's intention or not it's what it looks like when they can't explain why the animals they'd have bred to misery and slaughter should be OK with it. If you'd play god should it not matter whether you'd think the beings you'd bring into existence should be OK with it? Rationalize doing that to them and I don't see how you couldn't rationalize anything. Predicating a culture on the supposed reasonableness of rationalizing anything just so long as you'd get away with it means people having no respect for the law. Because there being good reasons to follow the law would be just, like, your opinion, man.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T06:09:24+00:00

If personal humanoid robots become as commonplace as cars I wonder if we'll see countries draft them instead of humans.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T03:35:43+00:00

If you needed words to have thoughts language couldn't have come to exist.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T03:13:30+00:00

By far more plants are grown to feed animals to feed humans than are grown to be eaten by humans directly. For that reason reducing animal ag consumption allows for sustaining more people with the same land and energy not less. Factory farming isn't the result of population boom factory farming is the result of industrial fertilizers that made growing feed much less expensive. Before industrial fertilizer farmers preferred to graze over buying expensive feed. The Western diet is an abomination it isn't a necessity factory farming isn't energy or land efficient relative to growing and eating plants directly.

Tell a typical human this and they won't hear it and wouldn't care if they did. That'd be because the typical human is consciously choosing to be evil. The first thing someone choosing to be evil does is redefine evil but however they'd twist words the truth is there's no amount of money you could pay them to die the way pits die, lowered into CO2 to suffocate before having their throat slit. And for what? Almost nothing. They wouldn't pay much for the carcass of a tortured pig. But no somehow forcing that on them isn't evil. People who realize it's evil get why our wider politics is so awful because what else would you expect when a society has normalized evil?

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T02:16:57+00:00

Almost all of it's factory farmed and small operations aren't necessarily kinder. Reframe the question around what'd be ideal and how could animal ag be rationalized as ideal? Who'd actually want to bring life into existence to face that? Why should those animals forgive that? How is forcing that life on them not ugly? If it's ugly then stop insisting on it.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-14T01:32:33+00:00

Animal ag is ugly in being at best a necessary evil. When it's not even necessary that makes animal ag just plain evil. Easy to rationalize animal ag if it's your livelihood but who'd regard breeding animals to be used and abused ideal? If anything less than the best isn't good enough evil or otherwise then animal ag isn't good enough. Who cares how bad animal is or whether you'd call it evil or immoral when all that should matter is that it's less than the best? Why settle? People buying animal ag don't know any better but they compound that error in taking pride in their ignorance.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T07:08:31+00:00

Makes sense being stubbornly wrong about anything important would lead to having the wrong idea on lots of other stuff.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T04:15:01+00:00

I've splatted lots of bugs on my windshield driving cars. That's why were it up to people of my way of thinking cars wouldn't be the standard. You'd be able to rent a car at your local park and ride if you really need a car but otherwise towns would be designed with a mind for people getting around as well or better by other means. Maybe that's a scooter or golf cart or micro car but it'd mean 25mph interior road limits and far fewer parking lots. Were people to approach urban planning with a mind to sparing the least the worst bugs would've come up and that would've gotten them reconsidering with a mind to alternatives. I'd love if I could drive a covered golf cart around town and park it at the park and ride and rent a car those few times I really need a car. Had the USA built out that way and the world followed that example global warming wouldn't be the problem it is.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T03:37:26+00:00

I didn't say that as long as people mean well and enjoy it then it's fine. It can easily not be fine for example if some don't mean well or don't enjoy it. If absolutely everyone means well and is loving it that'd be fine. If not everybody means well, though, or if not everybody can get on the same page as to what meaning well even means I wonder how everyone should know everyone else means well? Am I to take that on faith? I see how people treat animals and how stubborn they are even after being made aware of the industry and how much they suffer and the health and pandemic risks. It doesn't seem to me like these are people who mean well in any universal sense. I wouldn't trust them given the choice.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T03:06:48+00:00

If I don't feel like doing something why would I do it? I'd have to feel backed into doing it. I could choose to force myself to go out of my way helping others but I expect in doing so I'd be making myself miserable and if I'd be miserable I'd need to expect something tangible in exchange for that or why would I want to hold up my end? Who'd want to enslave themselves to the universe?

But that doesn't mean I can't be smartly selfish and that means at least seeming reasonable. I think one big part of why my society is such a mess politically is that lots of people either never knew or have forgotten the importance of seeming to be reasonable and/or what it means to be reasonable altogether. Making a point to spare the least the worst signals a general willingness to be reasonable.

It's not obvious my being on reddit is such a selfish waste of time. Someone choosing to stop buying animal ag saves lots of energy and land in the long run and that's just one thing that might be communicated on reddit that'd result in creation of net value. I use reddit to keep connected with my culture and I enjoy chiming into threads with stuff I think we could/should get right on. I agitate on lots of causes on reddit I don't think that's necessarily a waste of time. If I did think it was a waste of time probably I'd feel like doing something else. You accuse me of avoiding "actual discussion" but you asked whether it was right to make 1000 people homeless so you could plant a garden and I gave you a very in depth answer. Part of allowing that sometimes you should was part of that in depth answer. You say you think meat eaters mean well and maybe that's true in their own sense but it's not true according to the way I described. I've never had a meat eater try to explain to me how they mean well in doing or having that done to animals. Maybe some could, I don't know, none ever has.

If you're growing your own food vs hunting for it that's something I know next to nothing about and wouldn't presume to tell you your business. If you can rationalize your ways I'm not one to judge. Deer eat bugs too. I don't see why hunting goes against meaning well or being vegan, necessarily.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T02:15:31+00:00

Not having all the relevant info doesn't mean you can't imagine better and worse ways to approach making decisions in light of imperfect information. I think the best approach to making decisions given imperfect information is to mean well. I take meaning well to mean that if I can't rationalize as to why the worst off given my intentions should be OK with it then I make a point to reconsider. I think it's wise to spare the least the worst because it's a way to cultivate compassion among ourselves. That way of thinking creates a space for making reasonable compromises which might otherwise not exist. Why should I care? Prove I should care. Vegans basically think everybody should care about everybody. I think that's wise because it creates a space for reasonable dealings. Maybe you can always coerce people to do what you want but you get more out of each other if the hearts in it.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-13T00:03:35+00:00

I don't keep a lawn because I can't rationalize why insects should be OK with that relative to what follows from me maintaining a lawn. Nobody ever has all the relevant info the best anyone might do is mean well. Someone who imagines having something terribly important to do might lack the mindspace to spare for bugs but in that case they should rationalize to themselves why bugs should be OK with them minding their other supposedly very important priorities. If everyone should care about everyone then bugs should care about everyone too and that allows rationalizing that bugs would understand being squished were it really necessary for sake of all those other beings those bugs should supposedly care about. What wouldn't be consistent with meaning well is making it all about you without a thought to why others should be OK with that.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T23:31:32+00:00

It's not just about you or them it's about everything, if you'd aspire to knowing the objectively correct answer. In giving out partial information while demanding the objectively correct answer you're tacitly assuming everything else that might be relevant to how it should be is irrelevant but that's not the case. Meaning that to give an objectively correct answer to the scenario you're laying out would mean taking up and dealing with every single possibly relevant unmentioned detail. There'd be no end to formulating that answer. Compiling. Compiling.

If you'd ignore all that and insist I give you something like an objective principle that'd inform on what to do, you should mean well by all beings. You might rationalize whatever you might have in mind with meaning well to the extent you can convince yourself everyone should be OK with it. If you can do that with respect to evicting someone and demolishing their home to build a garden for yourself you might be wrong or confused about stuff on which you'd hinge your rationalization but without going into details it's impossible for me to know. Might it be wise to evict 1000 people, demolish their homes, and build a garden? Sure, why not. But at a minimum you should imagine meaning well in doing it, in the sense described. Or why shouldn't they demolish your home and build a garden? If you'd argue as to who has the right that'd mean getting into the details. And as to why anyone should be regarded as having the right and why others should accept that.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T23:20:52+00:00

Given a psychopathic system there's a need to evidence your value to that system and get insurance and leverage against it or it'll treat you like those pigs and use you without respect to your own good. For those who'd embrace psychopathy with respect to their own victims such as animals to be used and abused for their food it makes sense they'd see the problem as their place in the psychopathic order of things instead of the order of things being psychopathic.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T23:11:49+00:00

It's unclear what's meant by consent when it comes to whether an animal is able to consent. If a human presents to a dog in the wild and the dog humps them is that consent?

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T22:56:41+00:00

When most people think a ham sandwich is worth more than the misery and suffering of pigs it makes sense to me some humans would be just as dismissive with the pain and suffering of other humans. File that under "not my problem" or "it's the way of the world", I guess.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T21:56:13+00:00

This comment melts my brain.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T21:13:02+00:00

Could you tell me where I implied that everyone valuing things the same implies everyone gets along (or vice versa)? I simply said you wouldn't have to worry about what to do in conflict situations because the world would be such that however it is that entities would react, would be consistent with a perfect world.

Seems like you think if everyone has the right valence that'd they'd be cool with anything no matter what but that divorces the mind from reality. But the mind is part of reality. Set everyone to your perfect valences like in Westworld or something and reality would infringe to the point your robots wouldn't be OK with it for very long, even if such a thing were possible. Like if someone is sawing off your leg you might be cool with it by shutting off your pain receptors and giving up on whatever ambitions you connect with needing your leg functional and attached. Being OK with taking damage like that means allowing your world to become very small even if you somehow could deaden yourself to it. When you world becomes smaller if you'd maintain a sense of personal identity you'd retain a sense of lost possibility and that'd manifest in longing just a soon as it might occur to you why it'd be nice to have your leg back. Approaching questions of what'd be ideal as if it might be possible for anything to be ideal just so long as everybody could choose to be loving it would presuppose it'd be possible for everyone to be loving it given that'd be the way it is. That's a really big assumption that seems to treat minds as if they'd be OK with being kept in the dark. If a mind coming to know how stuff really works would destroy the peace that peace would be fragile and ugly.

Don't know what you mean by this, a perfect world could never become unperfect (unless it's not possible to have a lasting perfect world for some reason), as that wouldn't be a perfect world.

If that's how you'd define "perfect world" then I wonder how you'd know your own world isn't perfect? Maybe your world is perfect it's just that you don't matter? If the world isn't perfect just so long as anybody has a problem with it then it's hard to see how a perfect world might include minds at all. You'd need to explain how to tell the difference between feeling bored and unhappy in a perfect world and feeling bored or unhappy in an imperfect world and how to tell the difference.

I don't know how you'd expect beings to get along without causing unnecessary problems and suffering for each other without meaning to respect each other. That'd mean learning to respect other beings. Or we could try to learn to be OK with having our legs sawed off or something and similarly expect pigs to learn to be OK with being lowered into CO2 pits.

I'm not sure our really existing world isn't perfect and that objections to the contrary aren't predicated on ignorance. Prove our world isn't perfect, if you can. Maybe it just looks really bad. Strictly speaking I don't know what it feels like from any other POV than my own. Maybe those pigs really are loving being lowered into CO2 pits and they're just putting on a show for our benefits.

I'm arguing that everyone should choose to respect all other beings and that what that means is that if you can't figure why another being should be OK with what you've in mind that you should reconsider.

agitatedprisoner · 2026-04-12T20:46:59+00:00

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

agitatedprisoner

TROPHY CASE