Animal protection is the most noble cause

Imabiguous, you’re mistaken about a critical point here. The most relevant one of all really. I don’t want to have a conversation with you. I don’t have the patience to break down so simply what’s wrong with you the way the above poster just did, especially since when it’s shown to you in clear terms you just keep doing it and pleading ignorance.

Note to others…

Please pursue this with Mr. Reasonable. Perhaps he will reveal to you what crucial point I am mistaken about. It seems to be related to the argument raised by KT above.

On the other hand, right from the start, I acknowledge that, in regard to issues like animal rights, there may well be no way in which to determine objectively, essentially, rationally, logically, epistemologically, ontologically, teleologically etc., who either is or is not mistaken about any number of things.

Or whether Mr. Reasonable’s post above is or is not In fact an example of a “flagrantly arrogant” outburst.

That is, in a No God world.

But even this can be no more than an assumption on my part. A presumption embedded in “I” embedded in dasein.

Yes, if anything is cooked just so, it can be construed as good I guess, but I bought a cut of lamb once and had to open all the windows to evacuate the smell. That experience has even affected my tolerance for venison… if that blood isn’t drained quickly and the meat chilled immediately, it resembles lamb a lot. I’d rather eat my own foot than attempting choking anything that smells like that down lol

People say they soak it in milk or coke and then drown it in soy sauce and tons of spices and then it’s pretty good. My reply to that is why not have beef then? If you can’t taste the meat, then why does the kind of meat matter?

Turtles killed a couple of my ducks, so I fried up the breasts and yeah, I fed that shit to the cats. Same with squirrel and rabbit. Cats like dry meat.

The distance is probably not worth duck eggs and thanks to the turtles, I don’t have as many as before. Sometimes I set eggs in front of trail cams where they sit for weeks before suddenly disappearing with nothing on the cam. It has to be some type of reptile finally chancing upon them and not being warm enough to trigger the cam. But basically, I feel like I can’t even give the damn things to wildlife lol

What’s wrong with Red Lobster? It’s not as good as it used to be, but you could get at least half a dozen species on one plate.

Mr R is right you know. You even warned me about how frustrating you can be in the other thread, remember? Perhaps be more conciliatory and maybe he’ll play along.

I think his post was flagrantly arrogant and I don’t see why a god is necessary to think that, but I think that’s how he intended it as a provocateur. I’m also not sure there is a way to challenge him without being just as arrogant.

The fact remains that we need meat to be healthy. Some vegans can manage with the aid of vitamins and lots of extra time and expense in, for instance, making cheese from cashews, but humans lost the ability to synthesize certain vitamins specifically because we evolved on a diet of meat, which freed time to pursue language, arts, and science instead of eating leaves all day. It’s an unfortunate state of affairs in my opinion because I hate that animals suffer and someone being flagrantly arrogant about a callous disregard for their suffering is a travesty about which I know not what to do. Meat should be consumed with reverence and respect for the animal that gave its life, but if someone doesn’t think that way, then I don’t know what becomes of them or if it matters. Is empathy a weakness or a strength?

We’ve been watching a buck with a broken leg on the trail cams for a couple months and my friend finally shot it the other day, but we were all sad about it because there was a part of us that wanted it to make it, but we knew it couldn’t run from coyotes in that condition and we consoled ourselves that it was a mercy killing. On the other hand, we’re pretty callous about coyotes and shoot them just to be rid of them. I’ve read some guys shoot them in the leg in order to prolong their suffering and it doesn’t bother me because how coyotes are, but none of us operate in that manner. We like flattering ourselves for having an element of integrity and I think that is conducive for building relationships between people… if you treat animals a certain way, then I conclude ___________ about you. Maybe that’s the extent of it. But I have extra respect for someone who is judicious in his hunting and shows reverence for the kill.

Sure, he might be. But I suspect that what he thinks he is right about can never really be pinned down as either right or wrong.

It’s more an exchange of value judgments rooted in “I” rooted in an existential aggregation of subjective fabrications rooted in the life that he has lived. Beyond the reach of “serious philosophy”.

Still, I am more than willing to be conciliatory if he is willing to intertwine the mistake he claims that I am making in an actual context involving human interactions that come into conflict.

That’s basically my interest in philosophy: How ought one to live? After all, perhaps the answer can be pinned down philosophically.

This is purely a subjective fabrication on my part but his being the “resident contrarian” here has always struck me as revolving by and large around others seeing him as this “bad motherfucker”. The guy all the women want, and all the men want to be.

ILP seems to be more an extension of “social media” for him. Though he is clearly very intelligent and is more than capable of contributing real substance to the discussions. Just not [in my own opinion] down to earth.

I suspect however that any number of vegetarians will beg to differ. And then the part where genes and memes become hopelessly entangled in the debates. Both sides have reasonable arguments to make. So, in my view, using the tools of philosophy here will only take you so far. The rest is the existential contraption rooted in dasein and in whatever “leap” you take to one or another moral and political narrative. Or to one or another health narrative.

I more or less share this frame of mind but I recognize it as just that — a particular frame of mind that I came to embody existentially given an aggregation of particular experiences.

There just does not appear to be a way [to me] to go beyond that and propose an argument deemed either to be the most rational or the only rational perspective that all reasonable/virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.

Unlike, say, this point of view:

The bottom line is that different people will react differently to this story. And this tends to revolve around historical and cultural contexts. And around more specific interpersonal interactions.

But: Is there in turn a bottom line that philosophers are able to encompass as the most reasonable manner in which to think about it?

You’re right, it can’t be deemed objectively right or wrong, but if you want to talk to him, you may have to make concessions and be more accommodating to his eccentricities. It just depends how much you want a dialog with him for the sake of your own learning. If it’s not worth it, then to hell with it, but only you can decide because there is no objectively right or wrong thing to do.

Just talk to him like a regular Joe without being so rooted in academia.

I think this situation is itself example of one of those interactions coming into conflict lol. I’m not sure he’s willing to meet you half way, especially since you have nothing that he wants and he has what you want. Bringing it down to earth: it’s chapstick time! :wink:

Sure it can! You ought to live in accordance with your goals. If you want to talk to him, then you ought to do _________. If it doesn’t matter that much, then there is nothing you ought to do.

If it’s true, then it will suck when it’s no longer true.

How did it come to pass that natural beings, such as humans, cannot exist solely on plant diets?

[i]Most omnivorous people in developed countries obtain enough vitamin B12 from consuming animal products including, meat, fish, eggs, and milk,[6] but there are no vegan sources other than B12-fortified foods or B12 supplements.

B12 is only produced in nature by certain bacteria, and archaea.[17][18][19] [/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Sources

When apes lost their big fermentation chamber guts and became human, they could no longer subsist on vegetation. Why not? Because they were eating meat and there was no longer a mechanism selecting for humans with big guts that could absorb B12 and ferment vegetation to extract other nutrients.

And humans are poor converters of K1 to K2 because K2 is of such abundance in meat and an herbaceous diet is heavily reliant on gut flora to make the conversion, so once again, as we transitioned to meat, we became more reliant upon it.

Also with carotene and vitamin A.

Also, sweating is evidence of hunting. Why do we sweat? Because we have no fangs or claws and can’t run that fast, but we can hunt in the heat when other animals can’t stay cool enough to run. pri.org/stories/2017-08-28/ … n-function

And wearing their furs is almost certainly how we lost our hair.

Not only did we use animals for labor, but we also used their guts to digest plants, and then we ate the animal. By doing so, we lost the ability ourselves, and the fact the ability is gone is the empirical evidence for all to see.

As far as counterarguments…

My stepdad is a vegan. He makes cheese from cashews and has a plant-based substitute for just about everything. He spends a LOT of time in the kitchen and is a perfect example of what I’m talking about regarding time left over to study the charming irrelevancies of life. He’s had skin cancer twice (redhead), his fist wife died of cancer, and mom’s health has deteriorated markedly since she married him. He’s a 7th day adventist, who are supposedly the healthiest people on the planet. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

Well, there may exist people who have more respect for those who kill randomly and for the hell of it. They are welcome to see how that philosophy serves them, I suppose.

I look for qualities in people which serve my own goals and not objective righteousness, even though the people I’m choosing are serving objective righteousness. Fine, I guess. But I think they also see that looking out for each other is in each other’s best interest and it’s just coincidentally “objectively right” as a bonus. Everyone will always do what’s best for him, and if I can convince him what’s best for him is what’s best for me, then I’ll never need to worry about objective laws.

I love the irony. In fact there is a lot of irony in your post here Serendipper. And that is a compliment. You’re a gentler man than I am.

Cashew cheese, huh… :-k I might just have to give making some a go… if it’s good, it’ll be a real game-changer for me/my dull diet.

Well… vegans rapidly become malnourished, so what is that telling us?

I’m a rough tough creampuff :slight_smile:

1/4 cup cashews
1.5 heaping tablespoons yeast flakes
2 heaping teaspoons all purpose flour
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 tablespoons lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon coarse ground celtic salt
1/2 small fresno pepper
1/4 of an onion
1/4 of a tomato
1 clove garlic

I’m not sure of the mixing procedure, but that’s the ingredients mom wrote.

It doesn’t taste like mac n cheese, but it’s good in its own way.

Also, try some cucumber on your mexican food. I would have never thought of doing that.

I don’t know. Mom’s father says she wasn’t raised like that and it can’t be good for her. Grandma and grandpa refuse to eat it. It’s a little bit funny watching a 75 yr old man try to tell a 95 yr old man how to be healthy lol

Nothing is for certain until we are able to connect the dots between “I” here and now and a definitive understanding of existence itself.

And if your goals are existential contraptions, you embody them accordingly. They might just as easily have been other goals. And since [in my view] there is no way in which to determine how one ought to live [if in fact that is the case] the choices that one makes are always going to be problematic.

Yes, there are the parts rooted in genes. And while I am not all that sophisticated in grasping this part of the debate myself, it’s also a fact that in the modern world there are ways to sustain ones life [and ones health] without consuming animal products. And any number of folks will then reduce the discussion down to a moral conflict. From their perspective it is simply unethical to use and to abuse animals.

Then all the other lines are drawn regarding medical experiments and hunting and pets and animals in zoos and in circuses.

Sure, for all practical purposes, that is certainly one way in which to approach this when interacting with others. It sounds reasonable to me.

As long as you recognize that the goals you embody now are no less existential contraptions/fabrications ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

On the other hand, perhaps he is just less, uh, arrogant in approaching those who don’t share his own point of view. :wink:

I personally believe respect is the only issue here. Eat what you want ‘prey’ wise but show respect, have some honor. Grant a quick painless death but a happy joyful life. The issue is that people do not show love or respect for what gives them life, even at the expense of another’s, this is an immoral and honorless act.

Show respect to plants and animals alike, we all are life, animals and plants, we all live off of shit so be humble about your existence.

Plants are conscious and alive. It’s funny how people start saying what aliens are, “aliens are conscious, they’re this and that” before even understanding that plants are alive and conscious. It’s kind of an embarrassment for the human species, that type of thinking is. So quick to roll the red carpet out to an idea in your head but so quick to not care about what’s in front of you. This is a moral and spiritual issue not a dieting one. Like I have said countless times.

Oh, Uriah Heep, I know you’re not arrogant.

Right, even if there is a right way to live, there is no way to determine it. And every advantage has disadvantages so it boils down to deciding which set of circumstances you prefer, where “you” is defined as whatever it is that’s making you go, of its own nature.

So if my friend would not have mercy-killed that deer, it would have been eaten by coyotes or starved over the winter. Or maybe it would have lived to a ripe old age, then starved or got eaten. Or maybe it would have contracted that prion wasting disease or rabies. If we don’t kill them, something will.

Should I shoot squirrels or let the owls pick them apart?

Sure, I’ll concede that we’re reliant either on animals or technological substitutes. The only concern I have is the extent to which science can mimic nature, especially when science is political and is more concerned with justifying the existence of vegetable oil to profit some capitalists than preserving our health, and more especially so considering there are other insatiable capitalists ready to peddle pills to repair any damage done by the bs science in the first place. Lots of profit for everyone so long as no one knows the truth.

Especially considering that whatever it is making me go is the same thing making the animal go. How do I know that the player of the parts that is playing me, hasn’t also played them?

Well, even if I were, it would be construed by me to be but another existential contraption.

And the bottom line is that there are in fact folks on both ends of the political spectrum who are quite arrogant regarding animal rights. And this arrogance stems not from any perceived existential contraption but from the fact that they are absolutely convinced that unless you think like they do and are “one of us” on this issue you are quite simply wrong.

Not only that but I’m not even arrogant regarding this. I recognize that it too is in turn just another subjective fabrication rooted in dasein.

However bizarre it might seem to some, even this can only be embedded in the gap between what any particular “I” thinks and feels about it “here and now” and all that can be [must be] known about the existence of exstence itself.

It’s either all intertwined in what can only ever be or there is some measure of autonomy in the choices that any particular one of us make.

My point is only to suggest that in a world where we are free to choose, that choice does not appear to be one that can be pinned down philosophically. Or morally, politically, essentially, objectively.

There is what science can demonstrate as being true for all of us. In other words, in regard to human beings eating or not eating animals.

Then there are all of the things that each of us have come to believe is true “in our heads” about this relationship. Existentially. Here we can either demonstrate that others ought to believe it too or we can’t.

Again, what else is there until those dots between “I” and Existence itself are connected?

Will you explain what you mean by existence itself? To me, it’s like saying “the magnet is attracted to the iron by magnetism, but what about magnetism itself?” There is no magnetism itself. Magnetism is the interaction between magnets. Existence is the interaction between subject and object and there is no such thing as existence itself.

I’m sorry but tortured animals can be some of the best tasting ones.

A little foie gras and veal sandwich? Yes please.

The irony being that any explanation I might offer for existence is no less embedded in the gap between what I think/believe it is and all that can be [must be] known about it in order to explain it. Which of course would seem to be the case for everyone else too.

You can start with “I think therefore I am” or any other initial assumption to note that this thing we call “existence” in the English language appears to be all around us.

Or is that all just in our head? Or part of a sim world, or a dream world, or a matrix — or one or another mindboggling contraption that we are not even privy to.

Here we are discussing just one tiny part of it: to eat or not to eat animals.

But that and everything else is still entangled in this:

There are known knowns about existence. These are things we know that we know about it. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know about it. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know about it.

I’ll run this by Tyler Durden but he’s already crossed you off the list.

Let’s just hope he doesn’t decide to eat you. :laughing: