Militant Vegans - MEAT IS MURDER, YOU BLOODMOUTHS

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Owlflaps said:
Because your life is lesser than a cow.
Click to expand...

Must be.
AnOminous said:
So far as I know, vegans eat mushrooms. I've never heard of any who don't, at least not for reasons other than just not liking them.

Some vegans eat honey. Others don't. It isn't quite the same as milk since it isn't directly a product of their body, IMO, so it would be consistent to some extent with vegan beliefs to eat honey. It would also depend why someone is vegan, though. If the fundamental ethical basis of it is a refusal to instrumentalize the life of another animal, they might avoid it.

There's also an extreme form of veganism called fruitarianism, generally associated with the Jainist faith. These are people who refuse to kill any living creature, at least to the greatest extent possible, so they don't even eat anything that kills the plant. This practically limits them to nuts, berries and leaves.

Most people haven't heard of Jains because they don't go around acting like giant dicks. (I should add that not acting like a giant dick is also part of their religion.)
Click to expand...
How do they live?
 
Mrs Paul said:
Mmmm...scrambled chicken periods.

I once got into a debate online with a guy who said pet ownership was slavery. Ever seen these yahoos?
Click to expand...
So like, if we didn't have pets what would dogs, domestic rabbits, guinea pigs, goldfish and horses do? Those are all examples of animals that would have trouble surviving outside of captivity because they have all been bred to be companions.
 
Koby_Fish said:
they tend to use the term "sentient" incorrectly in a sentence, such as "It's wrong to kill sentient beings". They keep using that word. It does not mean what they think it means.
Click to expand...
It is a value judgement that they consider sentience and sapience to be morally equivalent. Its a stupid one but they are using the terms correctly
Bugaboo said:
If we evolved past eating meat we would either:
A. Get violently sick from eating meat
B. Filter feed off air particles
C. Not need such specific diet plans when eating vegetarian or vegan because plants would give us the majority of nutrients easily

I think the better term is "science has improved to the point where we can survive without meat" what with supplements and knowledge of nutrition so that we can plan balanced meals.
Click to expand...
I would say that we have evolved a new data storage system (culture) that has made it possible to live without meat and due to various factors (energy efficiency, declining nutritional content of meat due to mass production, etc) we will be evolving past eating meat in the next few centuries.

This all is way over the head of militant vegans who probably don't even know what a meme is or know the cost benefit analysis of switching away from meat (although it would be great to just switch immediately many people especially in the developing world don't have that luxury)
 
Last edited:
autisticdragonkin said:
It is a value judgement that they consider sentience and sapience to be morally equivalent. Its a stupid one but they are using the terms correctly
Click to expand...

Well, strictly speaking, most of the arguments from the nuttiest tumblr vegans I've seen are mistakenly using "sentience" when they really mean "sapience" - the difference being, sentient means the ability to feel, while sapience means the ability to think and reason like humans do. It doesn't help that a lot of media mistakenly uses "Sentient" when they really should be using "sapient". Further proof of their confusion is that cetaceans and chimps could arguably be classified as "sapient" and yet these animals don't hesitate to kill -and rather brutally at that, in complete disregard for their prey's ability to feel - in order to have food.

Many vegan activists harp on the animal's ability to feel (when they actually do use "sentient" correctly), but the really nutty ones actually claim that animals think just like humans do (thus confusing sentience with sapience). They end up anthropomorphizing animals. Cue the cognitive dissonance when faced with the fact that other animals who regularly hunt prey, if they're "sentient", are "immoral savages" as they claim humans to be for hunting/eating meat.
 
Last edited:
autisticdragonkin said:
It is a value judgement that they consider sentience and sapience to be morally equivalent. Its a stupid one but they are using the terms correctly
Click to expand...

The philosophical basis of veganism is in the ability to suffer. To take it back to Jeremy Bentham.

The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?
Click to expand...
 
AnOminous said:
The philosophical basis of veganism is in the ability to suffer. To take it back to Jeremy Bentham.
Click to expand...
I think that started with Buddhism and certain sects of Hinduism. While Buddhism focuses on eliminating suffering, Hinduism is concerned with "karma" and that causing suffering will bring bad karma.

"Suffering" is quite subjective and a strange rationalization in my view because no carnivore even takes suffering into account, ever. Not once. Which is why I think even the vegans that focus on "suffering" are full of cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
Koby_Fish said:
I think that started with Buddhism and certain sects of Hinduism. While Buddhism focuses on eliminating suffering, Hinduism is concerned with "karma" and that causing suffering will bring bad karma.

"Suffering" is quite subjective and a strange rationalization in my view because no carnivore even takes suffering into account, ever. Not once. Which is why I think even the vegans that focus on "suffering" are full of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

That's sort of silly reasoning, since nonhuman animals, so far as we know, don't engage in abstract moral reasoning at all, lacking the capacity for doing so.

Also, humans are in part carnivorous and do.
 
AnOminous said:
That's sort of silly reasoning, since nonhuman animals, so far as we know, don't engage in abstract moral reasoning at all, lacking the capacity for doing so.

Also, humans are in part carnivorous and do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly. (Also though technically we're omnivorous, so are bears, and bears will hunt and eat the shit out of deer. I love how vegans love to dismiss the omnivorous angle!).
 
AnOminous said:
That's sort of silly reasoning, since nonhuman animals, so far as we know, don't engage in abstract moral reasoning at all, lacking the capacity for doing so.
Click to expand...

Isn't one of Buddhism's values not to interfere with nature? If I'm not mistaken, the reasoning is that nature is doing what its supposed to be doing. Even if other animals hunt and kill, it's not within our rights to disrupt that natural cycle. I don't think cognitive reasoning isn't employed in animals, who are guided by instinct.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :oops:
 
Owlflaps said:
Isn't one of Buddhism's values not to interfere with nature? If I'm not mistaken, the reasoning is that nature is doing what its supposed to be doing. Even if other animals hunt and kill, it's not within our rights to disrupt that natural cycle. I don't think cognitive reasoning isn't employed in animals, who are guided by instinct.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :oops:
Click to expand...
something like that. They try to do as little as possible to disturb it, although some disruption is inevitable because rice and vegetable farming.

Disrupting the natural cycle is exactly what PeTards do, though, when they force carnivorous animals into vegan diets...
 
Owlflaps said:
Isn't one of Buddhism's values not to interfere with nature? If I'm not mistaken, the reasoning is that nature is doing what its supposed to be doing. Even if other animals hunt and kill, it's not within our rights to disrupt that natural cycle. I don't think cognitive reasoning isn't employed in animals, who are guided by instinct.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :oops:
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Jeremy Bentham wasn't talking about Buddhism. His views on the subject of animal welfare were more of a reaction to Descartes, who seriously propounded the idea that animals were literally completely unconscious machines that could not feel anything at all, and that killing one was the moral equivalent of breaking a watch.
 
Koby_Fish said:
Disrupting the natural cycle is exactly what PeTards do, though, when they force carnivorous animals into vegan diets...
Click to expand...

It makes me sad when they don't realize why their pets died because they were uncomprehending that they needed proper nutrition.
 
Owlflaps said:
It makes me sad when they don't realize why their pets died because they were uncomprehending that they needed proper nutrition.
Click to expand...

People who do that to cats especially should be kicked in the teeth.
 
If hermit crabs don't get enough animal protein in their diet they will start cannibalizing each other. True facts
Animals like that are always going to crave meat and seek it out, it's natural and part of a healthy diet for them.
I know it's been said before but, if they're so againsnt feeding animals other animals even though that is a normal and natural thing, why don't they get a rabbit or a guinea pig?
 
AnOminous said:
Pretty sure Jeremy Bentham wasn't talking about Buddhism. His views on the subject of animal welfare were more of a reaction to Descartes, who seriously propounded the idea that animals were literally completely unconscious machines that could not feel anything at all, and that killing one was the moral equivalent of breaking a watch.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just saying Jeremy Bentham wasn't the first person to think of it.

@Bugaboo I'm pretty sure it's a pathological need by these militant vegans to CONVERT EVERYONE, including carnivorous animals.

What would be hilarious is if a militant vegan had a pregnant hamster, then hamster babies, then suddenly no hamster babies because those hamsters will eat their babies at the drop of a hat.
 
PETArds don't care about nature or people's choices or what anyone likes aside from themselves - everyone else is just a convert and an "unwashed heretic" who they need to "vegucate" into agreeing with PETA lockstep.

And what matters to PETA is seeing their agenda fulfilled. Fun fact; when PETA tried to make an April Fools joke by saying they were going to spike meat with a dangerous virus, nobody thought it was an April Fools joke. Everyone believed it was the next (il)logical step for them.

And what's more, when the gig was up, they ended the article with; "but wouldn't the scenario we envisioned by so much better for animals?"

They're remarkably like a cult. What I'm interested in is what might happen when Ingrid Newkirk dies. Who'll be their next Manson?
 
Logia_Peter said:
PETArds don't care about nature or people's choices or what anyone likes aside from themselves - everyone else is just a convert and an "unwashed heretic" who they need to "vegucate" into agreeing with PETA lockstep.

And what matters to PETA is seeing their agenda fulfilled. Fun fact; when PETA tried to make an April Fools joke by saying they were going to spike meat with a dangerous virus, nobody thought it was an April Fools joke. Everyone believed it was the next (il)logical step for them.

And what's more, when the gig was up, they ended the article with; "but wouldn't the scenario we envisioned by so much better for animals?"

They're remarkably like a cult. What I'm interested in is what might happen when Ingrid Newkirk dies. Who'll be their next Manson?
Click to expand...

I dunno, but I'm ashamed that the cult has claimed the grey matter of Pamela Anderson. Who knows, maybe she's next.

What with all that insane marking up of Baywatch Babe with fake chalk marks indicating cuts of meat on her nekkid body, nobody's going to take that crap seriously. They take their "A dog is a pig is a rat is a boy" garbage waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom