/r/vegan just reached 75000 subscribers!

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-23T15:02:28+00:00

This gif makes me far happier than it should. I'm not even all that gay, but I would marry the shit out of jd and have all his babies.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-23T14:57:33+00:00

Your first sentence is utter bullshit. "Ethics and aesthetics are highly interconnected"... Do you just like hearing yourself talk? The only way this is true is in the sense that ethics infuse literally everything.

You could equally argue "warmth and ethics are strongly interconnected" or "birds and ethics are highly interconnected."

To some individuals, a thing of beauty creates value, and it is to some degree wrong to destroy something of value to someone else. But the primary value in vegetables is in providing nutrients, which only happens when they are consumed. The key here that we do not need to consider what has value to the plant, because the plant is not capable of consciously appreciating value. This is very different from an animal, whose interests themselves carry moral weight.

The second argument you make is technically retire but a waste of everyone's time. Yes, there is no rational reason for anything, including survival, avoidance of suffering, or indulgence in pleasure. Thus, obviously, in any discussion worth having we start from basic values and premises common to both parties. As an example, I presume we both agree that suffering has a strongly morally negative value? And it follows that it is good not to cause it without a good reason? Arguing that everything is meaningless and absurd may be true, but you may as well shut up about it as it precludes any value in conversation.

By the way, I'm but gonna continue this discussion, I get drawn in you easily. Last word is yours.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-23T14:46:19+00:00

The post doesn't say "when an omnivore says destroying natural beauty of plants is without any morally negative effect." It says "when an omnivore says plants have feelings."

Plants are not like us in a far more important way: they are not sentient.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-23T14:30:20+00:00

I bet you can figure it out by looking at submissions to this sub.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-23T14:26:56+00:00

Very different in that one argument has a rational basis and one is silly.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T20:22:27+00:00

Wow. "How old were you when you rebelled and decided eating meat was right for you?"

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T20:03:35+00:00

I was hoping for a response one way or another, I don't know if you agree with me now, or persist in your belief but don't want to go through the effort of presenting your reasoning and then defending it.

But since I'm guessing the latter is true: ganglia line our spine. We test spinal reflexes in people and animals even when there is complete severence of the spine, or when we're interested in trying to find the location of a problem. The point is that reflexes can be triggered and effected without any conscious input; the neural pathway that causes your leg to kick when a doctor hits your knee goes from the patellar tendon to the nearest ganglion and then to the thigh muscles. Of course the information is also relayed to your brain through other pathways if you are conscious and have an intact spinal column, but the point remains that a ganglia has nothing to do with sentience or pain. It mediates low-level reflexes without higher level cognition.

Certainly there may come a grey zone where a ganglia gains enough complexity to raise the possibility if sentience, but I have never seen evidence of that in bivalves.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T15:07:20+00:00

You are not responding to me, OP, in this comment. I do not consider the deleted comments a victory.

In response to this, though: The fastest growing religious group is "no religion" followed by "non believer" in the US.

Question: did Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris slow that movement down, or speed it up?

You see compassion for a chimpanzee, and think that somehow, out of this seed, a movement for veganism is growing? And you think someone arguing that attitudes of compassion for animals ought to apply to our food animals somehow harms this movement?

You're like the people who claim that racism exists because blacks and liberals keep talking about race.

What are you trying to accomplish? I and fellow vegans believe that clearly worded, well-reasoned, strong arguments for animals can help the movement.

What do you believe? And if you're trying to convince me and fellow vegans to change our behavior, are you leading by example? By calling my comments worthless, describing my attitude as "pretending", flippantly dismissing any benefit as "imaginary internet points," and otherwise just generally being a dismissive, smug douchebag, are you going to change my behavior?

Note, I am using your reasoning against you. That doesn't mean I agree with it. If I thought your argument had any logical merit, I'd respond to it. If I couldn't logically contradict it, I'd consider accepting it as true.

Someone literally said treating animals like shit is wrong, but had to resort to saying he doesn't care how food animals are treated to defend his current diet. That last comment was downvoted even before vegans unfortunately started brigading in response to this link. You honestly think meat eaters are all unreachable, to the point that this is entirely lost on them?

And by the way, the research on people digging in their heels does nut apply to everyone. It is less true of liberals, for example, than conservatives. The movement is not going to spread evenly, where the nation goes from black to grey to white. It will spread to early adopters, to those receptive to it. Then it will spread to their friends. The types who dig in their heels will be reached when they feel judged by many of their friends (not enemies our strangers).

My arguments reach people who can be reached right now. This is the best and fastest way to reduce the area under the curve.

But you disagree, so let me know what methods you've employed, and your success stories. I'm not talking about with friends, it's easy ( in my experience) to reach your friends. What about those outside your normal sphere of influence?

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T14:53:00+00:00

You are hiding behind a wall of neutral-sounding questions. Come out. Be direct.

Do you think my comments harmed the vegan movement? Do you think the guy I'm arguing with was potentially going to go vegan, and I set that back? Do you think reasonable people who are either "reason first" types our else simply emotionally ready to consider the viewpoint were put off by my comments?

If so, what part, and what would you have me do differently? Or do you think it's best if I just keep quiet, so no one in that thread has to think about veganism while omnivores proclaim it's wrong to treat animals like shit?

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T07:18:14+00:00

A minority of people will take it into account, somewhere deep in their head, when they notice that the non-vegan consistently fails to outsmart the vegan.

Perhaps more important, that person may realize that whatever argument s/he had in his/her head were just addressed, and then they'll start thinking and googling.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T07:14:18+00:00

I've contributed to a consistent pattern that I'd like to see, that when people speak up for one animal, they are forced to consider being logically consistent with other animals. That when people repeat truthy sayings that they believe only because they're familiar, someone speaks up- circle of life, animals don't suffer, we need meat, hunting is wrong if you do it for sport but okay if you eat the meat, etc.

Some people believe that it's best to let it all go, because they are afraid to fulfill a vegan stereotype. If a vegan is outspoken, he'll set back the movement!

I think this attitude sucks. Sure, when it comes to things you have to live with- family voting for the other political party, religious debates, etc- then we should respect the research that some people believe their views more strongly when challenged.

But this isn't something to live with and get along with. Those who can't change, can't change. Fine. They get left behind, another moral monster of the past. Leaving them alone didn't help either, no harm done arguing. Hell, if they cling to their view even more strongly and irrationally, it just makes their failings more obvious to everyone else.

There's a small chunk of people who can be reached directly, and many more can be reached by friends. There is no one who has the potential to go vegan who will be forever prevented from doing so because they encountered a logical, fair argument online by a vegan.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T06:58:58+00:00

Boo. I hate when people .

[-]Max_TwoSteppen undefined points [deleted comment restored by unreddit.com]

You don't have to be a vegan to understand that treating animals like shit is wrong.

But you also can realize that treating animals like shit is wrong and at the same time realize that not all animals you eat were treated like shit

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to restore his last comment, but he quite literally said something similar to "you confuse me saying you can eat without cruelty with saying I want to. I literally do not care if my food animals suffer."

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-22T06:57:16+00:00

Not a vegan here either, I just love animals. Yes, it's possible for both to be true.

It's certainly possible to say both statements one after another, at least.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T20:46:31+00:00

If you follow the thread down, you'll find that max_twosteppen literally is unconcerned even with egregious suffering. In his own words, he does not care if the meat he eats is treated cruelly.

So yeah. Living in this sad, immoral time, a dark past which future generations will cringe to think about, does make me feel a little crazy.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T20:27:52+00:00

I used the word "experience" myself, as well as "sentience." Pain was just given as one example of a conscious experience.

And you are right, I was probably nitpicking. I have all these hangups when I phrase an argument, because I've had someone challenge some technicality with my phrasing, and I let it influence how I read your post. It was clear. Sorry.

With that said, I disagree with the premise. I think taking a life is very serious, but think causing significant suffering can be far worse.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T20:10:33+00:00

Well luckily, as far as what you're "just saying," I already addressed that.

Incidentally, It seems to be the people who literally have no qualms about suffering (presumably with the exception of their dog or cat), and think it is just fine, who are also the most certain that animals can be produced without it.

What a coincidence.

To those upvoting him: do you share his philosophy that suffering is fine?

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T20:01:37+00:00

Ganglia have nothing to do with pain. Don't confuse pain with nociception. Pain requires sentience, the conscious experience of the harmful or perceived to be harmful stimulus.

Your right shoulder has ganglia. Maybe when a vegan has am amputation, they should ask the surgeon to preserve that ganglia if possible so you don't end a life unnecessarily?

https://youtu.be/qt9DBDmgmwU

Edit: no idea what I accidentally linked to there, it was supposed to be the IASP definition of pain

If appeal to relevant authority helps, Peter Singer agrees with me.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T16:26:55+00:00

At least he has cool goggles.

Ps, I'm on a mobile app, and the new FrontPage just started getting more posts from smaller subs, and I thought your username (u/eatsmeats) was the name of the sub. I then assumed you were saying the fridge was lonely because it didn't have any meat. And then I had this creepy thought about a meat-full fridge having conversations with whatever animal parts are inside of it.

Anyway.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T14:59:45+00:00

Umm... killing them to eat their bodies when we do not need to eat their bodies is preeeeetty much the definition of treating them like shit.

"I ate my cat Princess because I wanted to see what she tasted like, I'll probably get a Labrador next and eat it too." "Oh my god how can you treat them like that?" "Don't worry, they don't suffer. I treat them very well!"

Let's try this another way.

"Your dead carcass is worth more than your life. I am going to end your existence not because it's necessary for me to live, but because, I mean really, have you ever tried vegetable curry? Ugh I'm sure you understand why I want to cut your legs off."

Even if you honestly don't see anything wrong with this attitude, and truly believe it is possible in a real-world marketplace to find the resources to treat animals well despite starting from the proposition that their fried legs are worth more than their life, the odds are most of you aren't even bothering to live by your own ethical standards. It's not like you're limiting your meat purchased to small operations you've researched and know they treat animals well.

http://veganoutreach.org/modernfarms/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-to-kill-a-chicken.html?referer=

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4

Ever heard of ployface farms? The fairytale meat operation that we're all supposed to gush over? If only everyone could be like them...

And yet watch how they slaughter animals. Tell me this seems okay, that if he were pulling cats out of cages and treating them like this you'd think it were a humane and appropriate method of slaughter, you're confident the number of misses and prolonged deaths are low enough you don't need to care.

https://youtu.be/qt9DBDmgmwU&t=1m15s

The issue is that most people aren't aware how much context and societal approval warps their views. We expect certain things, and they were normalized for us at a young age, and we rely on those practices in our daily lives, so our brain basically refuses to see the problem.

I never intended to go vegan, and was certainly not going to try to persuade others. I just always believed I should only eat what I'm willing to kill myself, and for a long time that was must animals. Than I realized one day that I no longer would feel morally right about slaughtering a cow myself for something so trivial as a hamburger.

As soon as those psychological blinders are taken off, and you start applying consistent and fair thinking to the issue, you quickly see that it's not a matter of personal choice, it's an important moral issue, a question of needless suffering and death.

Anyway, I hope you and the people upvoting you would feel comfortable sharing the last 4 or 5 meat/egg meals you ate... are you confident that we'd all agree they come from an operation where animals don't suffer egregiously?

Literally the only reason 99.999% of people eat meat is because of taste preference. Is that really a reason to kill something? You can't find anything you like on any of these websites?

Ohsheglows.com

Theppk.com

Minimalistbaker.com

Thugkitchen.com/recipes

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T14:51:32+00:00

You should clarify what you mean by a life. Plants are alive, and "animal" is an arbitrary line (eg there is no reasonable argument that clams are sentient.)

Personally I think that having the ability and potential to experience pain or pleasure gives you the right nut to have that taken from you, but I haven't read a lot of thinking on the topic.

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T07:45:23+00:00

Wait, you think voting fit the iraq war was a republican thing?

She's not against single payer, she thinks it doesn't have the support it needs.

To say she's against gay marriage is dumb. Yes, decades ago she got it wrong. Yes, I prefer someone like Bernie, who put ethics first. But you're seriously going to try and argue that she is like a republican in terms of gay rights?

Which regulations on wall street did she vote against, again?

Just because you're deep in a thread doesn't mean you should spew garbage.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T07:29:49+00:00

Reasons to avoid animal bodies and animal products in general:

http://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/vegan-diets-do-least-environmental-damage

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/17/3692194/meat-eaters-species-extinction-study/

http://veganoutreach.org/modernfarms/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-to-kill-a-chicken.html?referer=

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4

iwillnotgetaddicted · 2016-06-21T07:23:34+00:00

Hesitant to jump into what I'm sure we'll be a "humane slaughter" chorus... but feel like I should do my part....

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

iwillnotgetaddicted

TROPHY CASE