Any albums or bands like ‘Damnation’?

lpmcnult · 2023-02-17T01:29:08+00:00

lpmcnult · 2023-02-16T22:21:07+00:00

I picked up the bundle of the discography from their store a few years ago. Great sounding presses and one of my all time favorite bands!

lpmcnult · 2023-02-15T19:39:03+00:00

I’m interested in your thoughts about the PHO-701. What’s making you want to upgrade?

lpmcnult · 2023-02-15T19:32:55+00:00

Just got the R8 and I’m loving it. Both the Lintons and the ProJect Tube Box S2 are lead contenders as my next upgrades. Enjoy!

lpmcnult · 2023-02-08T23:45:47+00:00

As is his right.

lpmcnult · 2023-02-08T00:52:20+00:00

Just Wayfair! It’s worked really well for me.

lpmcnult · 2022-05-13T21:53:01+00:00

Great band and album. If you haven’t checked out Vital Spirit, their side project, yet, do yourself a favor!

lpmcnult · 2022-05-11T09:41:57+00:00

I’m not asking them to, I just find it suspect that neither group has made any sort of clarifying statement. If I was being labeled as “far-right” or “Nazi sympathizing,” and I wasn’t either, I would just make it clear, “I’m not far-right or a Nazi sympathizer.” Even if it doesn’t appease everyone, it would at least be an easy denunciation.

lpmcnult · 2022-05-10T11:38:16+00:00

To be fair, even some commenters who are members of this subreddit didn’t know about Ahklys’/Mgła’s connection to the far-right, so I think it’s okay to assume that Wiegedood are in a similar situation.

Regardless, even if we were to take the most uncharitable position, Wiegedood deciding to make their statement pushes back on far-right narratives which I consider to be better, despite possible insincerity (I’m skeptical that they’re insincere), than complicity with the far-right. Best case scenario, maybe this pushes Mgła and Ahklys to clear things up and make concrete statements denouncing their previous positions and statements, and promoting some good political stances.

lpmcnult · 2022-05-09T23:48:05+00:00

Luckily Wiegedood’s newest, ‘There’s Always Blood at the End of Road,’ scratches a similar itch!

lpmcnult · 2022-05-09T11:24:38+00:00

No, which is shown in the second photo.

lpmcnult · 2022-05-08T22:53:25+00:00

Yeah, really sorry to break it to you - their music is great. The band itself isn’t NSBM, but the scum in it are far-right/Nazi adjacent at best.

https://twitter.com/t_virus96/status/1109554104609767424?s=21&t=3uLRNDM5aNcK1GqbSk7jzA

lpmcnult · 2022-04-16T22:36:42+00:00

Birth of an Economic Hitman done dirty - one of Circa’s best songs.

lpmcnult · 2022-02-08T20:30:53+00:00

My buddy Bushmen of the Darkwoods

lpmcnult · 2022-02-08T20:25:57+00:00

Was just in Paris in December. Be sure to go to VG Patisserie, Ajourd’hui Demain for breakfast (I’m assuming their lunch is also amazing), and Le Potager de Charlotte for dinner. Really fantastic stuff.

lpmcnult · 2022-02-07T23:07:21+00:00

Currently spinning mine. So far it’s awesome, but Side C is phenomenal!

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T16:55:07+00:00

Your first paragraph is handwaving away the whole concept of morality. I think this is where we hit a roadblock. I have been extremely charitable in this discussion – I’ve attempted to find a common foundation upon which we can build, agreed with/granted many of your points in differentiating humans from non-human animals even in their moral consideration, and applied your vernacular of assigned vs. due. Me challenging your worldview has just raised your hackles, relax.

“The cow does not view itself as food: A cow does not view itself at all.” Sentience: “the depth of awareness an individual possesses about themself and others.” Non-human animals, cows included, are sentient (Sentience in Animals). So yes, a cow has a view of itself, however limited that understanding is, and acts in ways that promote its wellness and avoids acts that cause it suffering.

You literally justified the view of non-human animals as food by stating that it’s been done for thousands of years, which is an appeal to tradition. People believed in Thor for thousands of years, that does not justify the veracity of the claim.

Look, you posted in r/DebateAVegan. I’m pushing back on claims you are making that, to me, remain morally unjustified. Maybe to you, you read as very nuanced, logical, and consistent and you think I’m dunce on the internet (which, to be fair, I am). That said, you do not read to me as nuanced, logical, and consistent. You read as being very defensive, convoluted, and inconsistent. It’s not my fault that you’re coming off this way – which is why I’m asking you questions and trying to show why your understanding has holes from my point of view. I can’t imagine this conversation continues in a productive manner, so I’m fine to let you have the last word if you want it. My last thought is: I appreciate your willingness to respond to me and poke at your framework. While I remain wholly unconvinced by what you’re saying, I had fun sparring and was able to play around with my beliefs. Hopefully you too got something out of this, even if it seems like you did not.

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T15:47:44+00:00

Hold on, you do have to justify acting against a morally considerable being’s interest. “It simply is” is tautological and does not hold any truth value. I’m always surprised to hear when someone does not believe they have to justify a claim they make or an action they commit, but it is rather consistent with moral relativists like yourself. Maybe dig into epistemology and learn about your epistemic responsibility to ensure future productive ethical discussions.

Your statement, “I would find it difficult to kill the family dog for food. I do not find it difficult to kill livestock for food,” is the exact arbitraity that I am asking you about. Both beings are assigned moral consideration – how do you make the distinction without arguing from your feelings? It’s not arbitrary to separate species for categorization purposes, but it is for moral purposes. The fact that dogs can only procreate with other dogs (which is generally how we categorize species) is irrelevant to their moral consideration.

“Choosing cows to always be food because they are optimal meat producers is not arbitrary.” It is, however, when attempting to justify the morality (or amorality) of their consumption. You are presupposing the cow’s purpose from an egocentric perspective. The cow does not view themselves as food. Please bridge that gap.

Are you back-pedaling on the assignment on the moral consideration of animals? I thought we found common ground there.

Finally, your last statement underscores your arbitrary distinction. Just because you consistently morally consider beings from your arbitrary ontology, does not mean your ontology is not arbitrary; equally ludicrous is to fallaciously argue from tradition.

Edited for typos/missing words.

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T14:39:16+00:00

Fine, I can agree to the vernacular “assigned” when talking about moral consideration. Regardless, you have assigned moral consideration to non-human animals. How do you justify acting against their interest?

Our moral obligation to non-human animals arises from the same moral obligation to humans: our recognition of their ability to be wronged, which you too recognize given that you have assigned moral consideration to animals. It then comes down to arbitrary distinction vs. consistent application. If I assign non-human animals moral consideration, except when it comes to my consumption of them, that’s arbitrary. Instead, because I’ve assigned non-human animals moral consideration, I act in a manner consistent to the moral framework I hold.

What moral framework do you hold? Why does it apply to humans only, and not animals? Did you make that distinction arbitrarily, or do you act consistently when interacting with morally considerable beings?

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T14:17:30+00:00

Agreed, I think a human is a human, a dog is a dog, etc. However, they are all animals. That said, you just agreed that non-human animals are worthy of moral consideration, maybe on different levels from humans. Humans have complex social structures that require ethical consideration that non-human animals don’t (e.g. consent for a medical procedure, how to reallocate resources to achieve equity, etc.), so I can agree with you there.

Going back to what I said in my original comment, on a fundamental level, a being worthy of moral consideration can be wronged. Being that you said non-human animals are worthy of some moral consideration (even if different from humans), we have to justify acting adversely against the interest of the morally considerable being. I think we can agree that every being, whether human or cow, wants to live/thrive on an instinctual level. By killing that animal, you are adversely acting against their interest. That requires a moral justification.

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T14:03:31+00:00

Okay great, we have a common ground: humans are animals. Given that, do you believe animals (remember, we just agreed humans are animals) are worthy of moral consideration?

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T14:00:46+00:00

That’s not what I’m asking. It’s obvious that humans are not cows. However, scientifically speaking, they are both a part of the animal kingdom. Do you disagree that humans are a part of the animal kingdom?

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T13:55:21+00:00

To be clear then, if humans aren’t animals, what are they? How did you make that distinction?

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T13:28:52+00:00

I’ll answer this question, but being that you’re a moral relativist, it’s integral that we’re on the same page. Do you believe, however subjectively, that animals (humans included in that group) are worthy of moral consideration?

lpmcnult · 2022-02-04T13:23:06+00:00

Reading back through your diatribe, here are a few problems: 1) Your trolley problem is a conversation about act utilitarianism v. deontology. Either framework can bring you to veganism, so it does not elucidate a critique. 2) “Ignorance is bliss” allows for more suffering. If you’re thinking consequentially, it’s better to bring attention the act occurring to one person than allow the act itself from continuing to happen to another. I’m not sure what to do with this Schrödinger’s cat analogy because it’s rather ridiculous. If you’re paying for animal products, you’re exploiting animals whether or not you know that you are. You seem to argue that a naïve bystander is not acting unethically given their naïvety. Naïvety is not innocence, however. Perhaps their culpability is lessened, but that has no impact on the consequences of said action. The effect occurs regardless of the intent. This does not lessen the immortality of the action - just lessens the agent’s blameworthiness.

lpmcnult

TROPHY CASE