What is your excuse for not being vegan?

[Brontosaurie]

Well I don`t know where you`re coming from (and I don`t wanna know...)

I'm coming from logic. This is INTP forum.

 

[Sly-fy]

I'm coming from logic. This is INTP forum.

Coulda fooled me with that comment, but whatever makes you sleep better my friend.

 

[Brontosaurie]

1 "I think it's unethical to let a species (implied: including cultivars/races) die out"
2 "Okay so if there was a pointless artificial species/cultivar/race only capable of suffering, it would be unethical not to perpetuate its existence? This follows from your argument. Isn't it clearly false? Your argument doesn't work."
1 "I will not answer and this is now about your emotions"

Is this kind of nonsense to be allowed on an INTP forum?

Oh wait there'd be like 4 people left if it wasn't.

 

[Sly-fy]

1 "I think it's unethical to let a species (implied: including cultivars/races) die out"
2 "Okay, so it there was a pointless species/cultivar/race only capable of suffering, it would be unethical not to perpetuate its existence? This follows from your argument. Isn't it clearly false? Your argument doesn't work."
1 "I will not answer and this is now about your emotions"

Is this kind of nonsense to be allowed on an INTP forum?

Oh wait there'd be like 4 people left if it wasn't.

Help me out here mate, how do you decide that a species is pointless and not worth existing, just because we benefit from its existence? That`s what I don`t understand, but since this is stretching out this far I doubt that you can give me an answer that explains your logic to someone like myself, who tries to think on a cosmic level and consider all life to be of equal worth in general terms. The whole premise of your argument seems to be subjectively biased (although this whole thread is based upon a subjective question.)

The fact that we (well not you, but myself and others) eat some species does not for a moment mean that those species are not worth living IMO, or that we all hold that belief that you do. I told you the fact, to which you seem to agree, that if we were to stop eating them they`d just die out as they aren`t capable of taking care of themselves from predators, nor are many of them capable of finding sufficient food and enough food that they would need on their own, given their rates of breeding, which is the issue that was the catalyst for this discussion that we`re having.

You called my explanation "fallacious," asked whether I wished that you`d point out to me where it was "fallacious," and without managing to prove that point to anyone other than yourself, you inadvertently end up indicating that my point that the animals in question depend on us and our need to eat them, was correct. So what`s the problem, my friend? If you see the logic of what I`m saying, even though we don`t see eye to eye, can`t we just respectfully disagree?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Help me out here mate, how do you decide that a species is pointless and not worth existing, just because we benefit from its existence?

I didn't. You decided that a species/cultivar/race must keep existing if it already does. You are using this as your argument for meat farming and consumption of farmed meat. You are saying it's ok to eat meat because that's how this kind of animal gets to keep existing, and it must keep existing.

In order to deconstruct your argument, i made a reductio ad absurdum using an extreme example, a hypothetical species/cultivar/race whose very existence is an undeniable cruelty and that derives no pleasure from life. Your argument implies that this kind of existence must be maintained, which is clearly false. Thus your argument fails.

I'm not denying your thesis, but the argument doesn't work.

From that quoted bit on, your post is mere presumptuous bullshit. But that's ok.

This is especially funny:

The fact that we (well not you, but myself and others) eat some species does not for a moment mean that those species are not worth living

Did anyone claim this? I sure didn't. It's you who claimed that any species/cultivar/race that exists must continue to do so and that this is our responsibility.

And FYI, i eat all kinds of meat. Your argument being wrong is not about my emotions or my diet; it's about your argument.

 

[Sly-fy]

I didn't. You decided that a species/cultivar/race must keep existing if it already does. You are using this as your argument for meat farming and consumption of farmed meat. You are saying it's ok to eat meat because that's how this kind of animal gets to keep existing, and they must keep existing.

In order to deconstruct your argument, i made a reductio ad absurdum using an extreme example, a lifeform whose very existence is an undeniable cruelty and that derives no pleasure from life. Your argument implies that this existence must be maintained, which is clearly false. Thus your argument fails.

First, let me say that I`m glad that we`re moving away from (albeit indirect, but clear) ad hominems.

Now then, I`m not talking about a hypothetical Frankenstein`s monster, the like of which you`re strawmaning to use as a link to the likes of chickens or pigs, which I see as creatures that are equally as majestic and deserving of respect as horses, dogs, cats or any others. Such a monster, I`m sure you can agree with me doesn`t exist, and of course I would be against creating something like that only for personal gain.

The actual, not hypothetical, animals in question, I believe do not live miserable lives but for extreme examples of ultra-industrialized meat processing plants etc. which are methods of animal cruelty which I have alluded to strongly disagreeing with, when I said that I was in favor of free-range, cage-free treatment of farm animals. Such animals might not have the kinds of lives that we`re used to, with HDTVs and the internet etc. but those are the only and the best kinds of lives that they know and are capable of knowing.

What say you, if a super-advanced race of aliens were to come to Earth and intend to wipe us out because we weren`t as advanced or sophisticated as they were, were "filthy and ugly" according to their subjective tastes etc., would you agree to that? I doubt it. I however respect your decision to not eat animals or animal products, a decision which you believe to be morally superior than mine.

EDIT: ^It`s hard to keep up when you`re editing your post several times, but I now fail to even see the motivation behind which you`re arguing me on my justification of eating meat, since you yourself say that you eat meat. Is pointing out flaws of my misinterpretation of your hard to understand hypothetical strawman argument the only motivation you have to keep arguing whatever point it is that you wish to make?

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you are talking about actual animals, you cannot use a generalized abstraction as an argument. Those are incompatible lines of argument. Your argument wasn't "chickens and pigs specifically don't suffer too much so it's ok to eat them". Your argument was "any lifeform that exists must get to keep existing and mustn't be allowed to die out". If this is to be an argument it must be plausible across applicable instances, which it isn't, as i've demonstrated.

My counter is reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. Strawman would be if i pretended that your argument was something else than what it was. For example, if i'd said "Oh, so you're saying farm pigs must exist because they have cute noses", that would've been a strawman. But i didn't ascribe to you any argument that you didn't put forth yourself. However, you've done that to me during this brief exchange:

you decide that a species is pointless and not worth existing, just because we benefit from its existence

You're the one strawmanning.

I hope you're not offended by this truth.

EDIT: ^It`s hard to keep up when you`re editing your post several times, but I now fail to even see the motivation behind which you`re arguing me on my justification of eating meat

What if my motivation is simply discernment and proliferation of truth and logic, including the correction of erroneous reasoning?

I'm not objecting to your opinion or your habits, but to your argument, your justification. Is this a strange or impermissible topic to you?

Sorry about the edits, i should learn more patience.

 

[Sly-fy]

What if my motivation is simply discernment and proliferation of truth and logic, including the correction of erroneous reasoning?

It could be that I`m just not smart enough to see the logic in your argument, but the argument aside I must say that I`m quite baffled by the level of visceral vigor you put into arguing for the sake of argument, even admitting to not having any motive that directly relates to the subject matter that`s being discussed. You simply wish to prove to yourself your self-worth as being logically superior.

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it once more, if it really makes you feel better then by all means, believe that your argument-driven-argument kicked my ass and feel free to dream sweet dreams tonight. I assume that you`re an adult due to your high level of ability to articulate your (however jumbled) thoughts, and as an adult I will treat you, so you will face no condescending efforts of negative reinforcement from me in order to remedy your anti-social attitude.

Anyway, seeing as how we`re getting nowhere and I`ve already strayed off-topic responding to your strawman semantics argument, (yes, you implying that I`m in favor of Frankenstein-like creatures was a strawman) this will be my last post on this thread.

Sorry about the edits, i should learn more patience.

A lack of patience is not your Achilles heel here, as it would seem that you have it in more abundance than I do, as I am abandoning what I see to be a meaningless argument that`s going nowhere. Therefore you`re the winner (of the meaningless argument, to which I`m sure you`ll still ascribe some meaning that eludes me.)

 

[Brontosaurie]

you implying that I`m in favor of Frankenstein-like creatures was a strawman

No. Your argument, as presented, may be used to justify that Frankenstein-like creature, meaning it doesn't work. I simply pointed this out. Don't shoot the messenger!

 

[bvanevery]

and a normal human being who needs protein.

I'm not convinced that lack of protein is what keeps my brain from working. I wasn't trying to be vegan, only vegetarian. I had piles of eggs and cheese, there's lots of protein in those. Brain still fell apart.

What makes it acceptable for me to eat farm animals is the fact that without them being fed and cared for by humans, they wouldn't even exist as they're docile creatures who are not self-sustainable.

This is a pile of baloney. Species that exist only for human exploitation, don't have to continue to exist. All remaining members of the species could simply be allowed to die of old age. Some species would go extinct, others would revert to their feral state, i.e. wild boars.

 

[Grayman]

This is a pile of baloney. Species that exist only for human exploitation, don't have to continue to exist. All remaining members of the species could simply be allowed to die of old age. Some species would go extinct, others would revert to their feral state, i.e. wild boars.

It isn't exploitation if it is for the mutual benefit for both species. You cannot argue that all animal produce leads to exploitation.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It isn't exploitation if it is for the mutual benefit for both species. You cannot argue that all animal produce leads to exploitation.

Of course you need to "benefit" the organism in order for it to survive so you can exploit it

ijhsfgeijogesij

 

[Yellow]

It isn't exploitation if it is for the mutual benefit for both species. You cannot argue that all animal produce leads to exploitation.

I cannot argue that all animal produce leads to exploitation because all is an extreme word. Nevertheless, I can't think of a single example or animal produce that doesn't involve exploitation. I'd love a chance to analyze any examples one may come up with.

I'll provide a sample argument involving a popular "example" -- sheep.

I will ignore the no doubt hundreds (maybe thousands? I'm not super "up" on sheep husbandry) of sheep-herders who provide inadequate care for the sheep, who don't care about a sheep's wellbeing (or virginity for that matter). I won't address the collection of sheep's milk, nor will I touch on lamb/mutton production, which probably have the same issues as any other meat/diary market. I also won't mention the worldwide demands for sheepskin and lambskin.

I'll just address the most ideal situations imaginable in wool production.

It's true that sheering sheep appears to be a mutually beneficial situation. If a sheep goes long enough without being sheered, it can suffer massive health problems and even die. As a benefit of sheering these apparent evolutionary failures, we get warm fuzzy wool to make clothes from.

Except, there's the issue of how a creature incapable of caring for itself came to be. The answer's simple of course, we bred them that way. We manipulated these creatures for many thousands of generations to become naturally incompetent. We've bred them so dependent on us, that even if many breeds of sheep had the survival skills to forage on its own and avoid predators, freedom can still be a death-sentence.

You could still argue that in ideal situations, individual sheep aren't being treated unfairly in the production of wool for the market by current industry workers. But clearly, the entire "species" has been grossly exploited for the consumer market.

 

[bvanevery]

I think "benefiting" a species would be leaving it the heck alone, and even doing a few things to help ensure its survival. Like ensuring there's a decent food supply available, and keeping the area free of its predators. This is pretty much how we treat domestic house pets, when we are responsible owners.

"Benefiting" a species by slitting its throat one day, having it live its last moments in terror... you're kidding yourself. You do it to benefit you.

Ensuring the propagation of a species, is not equivalent to benefiting the members of the species.

 

[Grayman]

Except, there's the issue of how a creature incapable of caring for itself came to be. The answer's simple of course, we bred them that way. We manipulated these creatures for many thousands of generations to become naturally incompetent. We've bred them so dependent on us, that even if many breeds of sheep had the survival skills to forage on its own and avoid predators, freedom can still be a death-sentence.

You could still argue that in ideal situations, individual sheep aren't being treated unfairly in the production of wool for the market by current industry workers. But clearly, the entire "species" has been grossly exploited for the consumer market.

In the same way bees and flowers rely on each other through natural evolution we and other animals rely on each other. We are a part of nature and are not above it. Just because it had human involvment does not make it inherently evil.

Probably the most evil thing I've heard thus far is letting an entire species go extinct just because of a tendency to idealize the 'wild' and see it as holy and view anything outside of it as being corrupted by the sin of man.

 

[Yellow]

In the same way bees and flowers rely on each other through natural evolution we and other animals rely on each other. We are a part of nature and are not above it. Just because it had human involvment does not make it inherently evil.

Probably the most evil thing I've heard thus far is letting an entire species go extinct just because of a tendency to idealize the 'wild' and see it as holy and view anything outside of it as being corrupted by the sin of man.

I wasn't speaking of "evil" or "sin", only exploitation. The thing is, the domesticated breeds aren't representative of the actual species. If anything, we are destroying the wild species through domestication.

I agree entirely that we are not above evolution, but you are confusing generalization with specialization. There are a few "specialists" out there that must depend heavily on a very specific set of circumstances to survive. Like certain flowers and certain pollinators.

We are not specialists, not by a long shot. We are very much generalists, which means that we interact with a host of species, and don't particularly depend on any one to survive. So it stands to reason that our co-evolution potential with all these other species is limited.

We aren't in some kind of cheetah-gazelle arms race. We aren't bugs evolving poison immunities at the same rate as the tree we eat evolves poisons.

This is not a cooperative relationship we have with our animal slaves. We hold them captive, claim complete ownership over them, breed them, and fully exploit them for every resource we think will make a profit.

So please understand that the following is not some unrealistic, idealistic romanticization of naturally arising species over man-made breeds.

We are a part of this world, as is every species alive, every species that's ever lived, and every species that ever will live. If evolution were a field to which ethics would or could be applied, then we'd be in gross violation. We have created breeds of organisms that are unsuited for this world. They are aberrations.

We cannot know for certain what intelligence other species possess, but I hypothesize that at the very least, they experience profound insecurity at their inability to cope with their environment, and their inability to fully act on their natural, sometimes vestigial instincts. We observe this in some pet breeds, and so I see no reason to dismiss this concept for material breeds. All of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of individual creatures aside, I argued in my previous post that their very existence is and act of exploitation.

To expand on the argument, I'd assert that it would be an act of mercy to allow these little (and large) monsters the test of natural selection (as in, allowing them to die out, if need be).

 

[Rualani]

To expand on the argument, I'd assert that it would be an act of mercy to allow these little (and large) monsters the test of natural selection (as in, allowing them to die out, if need be).

I do have the feeling that it is a better option to let animals compete fairly instead of the complete domination we have over them currently.

Still, my excuse is that I'm a lazy asshole and don't know how to plan out my meals optimally like a fucking adult. I love salty food and end up eating shit. At, least, there is some justice in that my body reaps the result of these poor decisions.

Dangerous TL;DR territory

Spoiler

I find the arguments between complete abolishment of the exploitation of animals and the notion of improving their lives under our control fascinating. They butt heads so much, yet I find the arguments on both sides compelling.

 

[crippli]

I do have the feeling that it is a better option to let animals compete fairly instead of the complete domination we have over them currently.

Humans are one species among all other species. Every species compete. It's not like humans can decide to step aside and let "animals" compete among themselves. Humans have large needs and need most, and at a point probably all resources the planet and sun can provide.

Humans need other planets to harvest if survival of the human species is to be continued.

 

[Grayman]

Still, my excuse is that I'm a lazy asshole and don't know how to plan out my meals optimally like a fucking adult. I love salty food and end up eating shit. At, least, there is some justice in that my body reaps the result of these poor decisions.

No judgment here. Just do what is natural for you.

Edit: (sometimes I wonder if people see the little alternate meanings behind these statements I make) is it natural to eat unhealthy.... i need to contemplate on this....

 

[Grayman]

To expand on the argument, I'd assert that it would be an act of mercy to allow these little (and large) monsters the test of natural selection (as in, allowing them to die out, if need be).

Would it be an act of kindness to throw you in the middle of the jungle where humans originated from and see if you survive?

All species rely on other species to survive whether it be for food or hair. Why would you dictate what is right for evolution and what is not? Isn't even our own ingenuity a product of evolution itself?

Veganism is not currently a natural process for us because our physical evolution is slower than our social and mental evolution so why argue for the entire abolishment of animals as a food source instead of arguing for a stable and sustainable food source? There are certainty better ways for us to treat animals but that can be resolved without jumping to the other extreme.

 

[bvanevery]

Would it be an act of kindness to throw you in the middle of the jungle where humans originated from and see if you survive?

That argument is a superfluous distraction. Species do not have to survive. We've exterminated plenty of species already and will probably exterminate a few more. Give all the current livestock a nice retirement package free of cruelty. I don't really see the problem here. What are you holding out for, the right of a child to attend a petting zoo? They can go pet something else.

 

[Grayman]

That argument is a superfluous distraction. Species do not have to survive. We've exterminated plenty of species already and will probably exterminate a few more. Give all the current livestock a nice retirement package free of cruelty. I don't really see the problem here. What are you holding out for, the right of a child to attend a petting zoo? They can go pet something else.

I fucking hate zoos and the lack of respect people have for entire species is fucking disgusting. I don't care that your approach is the logical approach. It is as putrid as sterlizing millions of humans because they have genetic disorders that nature would have weeded out if we hadn't circumvented it.

 

[bvanevery]

I fucking hate zoos and the lack of respect people have for entire species is fucking disgusting. I don't care that your approach is the logical approach.

I'm not sure you're clear on my approach. I wouldn't leave any of the domestic food production species in zoos. I'd give them all nice bales of hay or whatever until they died of old age.

It is as putrid as sterlizing millions of humans because they have genetic disorders that nature would have weeded out if we hadn't circumvented it.

False argument. I'm not advocating the extinction of the human race.

 

[Yellow]

Would it be an act of kindness to throw you in the middle of the jungle where humans originated from and see if you survive

Well, I wouldn't use that as an example because I'm kinda obsessed with survival. It's the only hobby I've maintained since childhood. I'm a mutt, and I do believe I could survive in the wild in my current location, and in any of my 8 ancestral geographic locations.

However, I didn't say that at all. At least, I didn't mention relocation.

Larger mammals especially, even those going to their "native" environment, don't handle relocation well. It's because we acquire a lot of knowledge before reaching maturity that goes beyond instinct, and therefore we are less prepared for foreign environments, even if they are better suited.

But take dogs, for example. Dog fancy is a disgusting, deforming practice. However, when left to their own devices, dogs will form feral packs that quickly adapt to their environment, filling the same niche held by wolves. This gives wolves a little trouble, but not really. Wolves are a little better in their environment, so competition is little worry, and the differences in dog breeds are eliminated within just a couple generations of mutting. You eventually get "wild dogs", which are effective pack predators.

I don't understand how that's inhumane. Pigs will un-domesticate as quickly, as will cows, cats, and other little furry or feathered critters, provided the climate isn't absolutely wrong for them.

 

[PaulMaster]

they as specimens do not benefit whatsoever from the continuation of their kind of passive hapless existence?

I disagree. Value is subjective. Cows likely value being alive, even in a condition another creature might deem to have a negative value.

Would you rather die or lose a leg? Two legs? etc...

 

[Brontosaurie]

I disagree. Value is subjective. Cows likely value being alive, even in a condition another creature might deem to have a negative value.

Would you rather die or lose a leg? Two legs? etc...

You're not responding to what you've quoted.

I said: It doesn't matter to a specific animal that its species/cultivar/race continues. What i mean is that there is no ethical concern for us with regards to existing specimens, whether or not their specific breed continues.

Of course it matters to a specific animal that it itself lives on. Of course it values its own life.

 

[PaulMaster]

Do you realize that these docile creatures were specifically bred by humans for easy reliable meat production, and that they as specimens do not benefit whatsoever from the continuation of their kind of passive hapless existence?

A specimen benefits from continuing its kind of existence.

One leg or two...

Ok I give up, show me the answer.

 

[Brontosaurie]

A specimen benefits from continuing its kind of existence.

One leg or two...

Ok I give up, show me the answer.

I would rather not die. Like the cow. This has nothing to do with justifying meat consumption via continued existence of domesticated lifeforms.

 

[PaulMaster]

I would rather not die. Like the cow. This has nothing to do with justifying meat consumption via continued existence of domesticated lifeforms.

If its only way of being alive is for meat consumption and it will want to be alive then it seems justified.

If one values the cows' values, that is.

However, eating meat for the purpose of letting cows be alive is pretty silly.

 

[Yellow]

If its only way of being alive is for meat consumption and it will want to be alive then it seems justified.

If one values the cows' values, that is.

However, eating meat for the purpose of letting cows be alive is pretty silly.

I could be wrong, but I think the point is that we have bred a creature for the sole purpose of easy meat. It's a perversion of both our nature and that of the animal whom we manipulated.

On my own tangent,
The predominant argument for veganism has weight. We do not need to keep animal slaves for our survival. We can fully subsist without animal exploitation. We choose to continue it because we have a conditioned preference for "meat".

The argument for meat-eating is also strong, of course. We are omnivores, as well as being intelligent predators, so there is nothing unnatural about our desire for meat. In fact, it's deeply satisfying to be involved in the process from beginning to end. However, we must consider context. In most wildernesses, the most ready source of fat and protein is in other living creatures, preferably herbivorous ones.

Currently, our need for fat and protein can be met without animals. In fact, it can be met with equal, if not greater convenience than our current system. Since those reaping the majority of the animal products are the privileged populations who don't need it, the whole system really is depraved and gratuitous.

If anything, we have a greater need for the "thrill of the hunt" than we do for animal consumption. At least that fills an instinctive drive that most men and some women have, and cannot meet in our current lifestyle.

 

[bvanevery]

If its only way of being alive is for meat consumption and it will want to be alive then it seems justified.

Baloney. Hey one day, the eco terrorists take over. All the farmers are held at gunpoint, even the ones with guns themselves, and are required to just feed their remaining livestock until their natural deaths. Those farmers that don't comply are shot. Could be a human tragedy, but the threat of armed force would probably minimize further animal tragedies. Or if farmers walk off the job and refuse to do anything, then the eco terrorists seize their property and do the caregiving job until the animals die out of natural causes. Then the farms can continue with vegetable production only.

 

[PaulMaster]

Baloney. Hey one day, the eco terrorists take over. All the farmers are held at gunpoint, even the ones with guns themselves, and are required to just feed their remaining livestock until their natural deaths. Those farmers that don't comply are shot. Could be a human tragedy, but the threat of armed force would probably minimize further animal tragedies. Or if farmers walk off the job and refuse to do anything, then the eco terrorists seize their property and do the caregiving job until the animals die out of natural causes. Then the farms can continue with vegetable production only.

What is your point?

 

[bvanevery]

That the meat consumption isn't justified by the circumstances of the ongoing meat production. It's simply a choice. It's a choice that could be changed. There's no inherent reason that species that exist solely for exploitation have to continue. The individuals of the species don't have to be treated badly before the species goes extinct either. So it's just lameness to talk about well, uh, the meat's gotta keep being around, 'cuz, like, it's already been around.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Because I am a weak person.

I'll happily contribute to the torture of animals if it means I don't have to get up off my arse and apply some discipline to my life.

I don't care if what I buy was made by slave labour, I want that stuff because I do.

I'm unhappy, so what do I care if I am making others unhappy. That's life. Life is suffering.

Meditate till death.

 

[bvanevery]

I'm unhappy, so what do I care if I am making others unhappy.

Because to be such, is a circle of despondency. The only exit for yourself is to find happiness in something. Spreading misery is unlikely to do it for you.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Because to be such, is a circle of despondency. The only exit for yourself is to find happiness in something. Spreading misery is unlikely to do it for you.

Happiness creates unhappiness. There is no point trying to be happy. Suffering is an illusion, and so are you.

 

[bvanevery]

Happiness creates unhappiness.

Prove that. Even in one instance, with a specific concrete example.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Prove that. Even in one instance, with a specific concrete example.

We are a complex chemical reaction. The laws of physics state that the fundamental quantities which determine the fundamentally causal universe are conserved. Happiness is no different. We can unbalance it until the universe burns itself to death, but the outcome is inevitable.

You want a concrete example? If you care about being happy, you can go fill a cup with some.

 

[PaulMaster]

That the meat consumption isn't justified by the circumstances of the ongoing meat production. It's simply a choice. It's a choice that could be changed. There's no inherent reason that species that exist solely for exploitation have to continue. The individuals of the species don't have to be treated badly before the species goes extinct either. So it's just lameness to talk about well, uh, the meat's gotta keep being around, 'cuz, like, it's already been around.

That was my point - redundancy. I think we're saying the same thing.


Meat consumption is justified, though.

 

[bvanevery]

We are a complex chemical reaction. The laws of physics state that the fundamental quantities which determine the fundamentally causal universe are conserved. Happiness is no different.

That is baloney. Happiness is a state inside a chemical neural network. There is no a priori reason to assume that the chemical constituents and electrical impulses affecting that network, cannot also cause sadness, anger, more happiness, whatever. You have posited some kind of general conservation principle without demonstrating anything about the physical basis of how happiness actually works. So, BZZT, no cookie for you.

You want a concrete example? If you care about being happy, you can go fill a cup with some.

I have burdened you with the task of proving your sweeping generalization in even ONE instance. I'm not going to be shocked if you can't do it. Maybe someone else will be able to, but it's quite possible you've simply made an empty statement that sounds good and can't be demonstrated in any concrete way at all. But if it really is empirically observable that "happiness creates unhappiness," you should be able to readily demonstrate it in some instance.

 

[PaulMaster]

I'm unhappy, so what do I care if I am making others unhappy. That's life. Life is suffering.

Life is more than suffering.

 

[bvanevery]

Meat consumption is justified, though.

I think it is important not to be vague and use the passive voice when making such claims.

My only "hard and fast" justification is I haven't found a way to keep my brain from falling apart if I don't eat meat. It takes about 2..3 days, then my brain is toast. I don't know what the missing ingredient is. Taking B12 pills doesn't help. I've wondered if heme iron is the problem. Maybe there are some other meat only ingredients that the vegans don't talk about much. I can try researching it all again.

I'm not willing to have my brain turned off and diminished, just for kindness to other animals. I didn't select the biology I've got, and the facts of my biology are what they are. I have a finite lifespan, and living without the full use of my brain, is effectively diminishing the number of hours of worthwhile life I have to experience existence. I'm willing to kill for that, much as I'd rather not.

Other factors like taste, economics, or convenience, I could work around. They aren't hard requirements. That said, I'm not a candidate for developing an expensive diet just to avoid killing animals. I'm on food stamps and they only go so far. Special expensive miracle foods aren't part of the program.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That is baloney. Happiness is a state inside a chemical neural network. There is no a priori reason to assume that the chemical constituents and electrical impulses affecting that network, cannot also cause sadness, anger, more happiness, whatever. You have posited some kind of general conservation principle without demonstrating anything about the physical basis of how happiness actually works. So, BZZT, no cookie for you.




I have burdened you with the task of proving your sweeping generalization in even ONE instance. I'm not going to be shocked if you can't do it. Maybe someone else will be able to, but it's quite possible you've simply made an empty statement that sounds good and can't be demonstrated in any concrete way at all. But if it really is empirically observable that "happiness creates unhappiness," you should be able to readily demonstrate it in some instance.

Truth is truth. I needn't pander to you.

Give me one good reason that happiness is worth pursuing in the first place.

You don't have to, I don't care, but for your own sake you might want to question why you are so dogmatically clinging to the happiness delusion.

Don't you know that your brain can trick you into thinking that something feels "good" and therefore is "good", when really it is just a message based on positive and negative reinforcement and punishment to convince a biological organism to sustain its life, just because that's what it does?

I don't understand a word of your electrical network mumbo jumbo. It is a fundamental principle of the universe that quantities are balanced, such as consciousness and happiness.

It is a wheel of colour, it spins to produce white, and white implies black in equal amounts.

 

[PaulMaster]

I think it is important not to be vague and use the passive voice when making such claims.

I was clear and direct.

 

[PaulMaster]

Truth is truth. I needn't pander to you.

Give me one good reason that happiness is worth pursuing in the first place.

You don't have to, I don't care, but for your own sake you might want to question why you are so dogmatically clinging to the happiness delusion.

Don't you know that your brain can trick you into thinking that something feels "good" and therefore is "good", when really it is just a message based on positive and negative reinforcement and punishment to convince a biological organism to sustain its life, just because that's what it does?

I don't understand a word of your electrical network mumbo jumbo. It is a fundamental principle of the universe that quantities are balanced, such as consciousness and happiness.

It is a wheel of colour, it spins to produce white, and white implies black in equal amounts.

Happiness is the product of a chemical reaction. Its a thing. Its not non-happiness that is the balance, its matter (food) that has been changed into energy.

 

[bvanevery]

Truth is truth. I needn't pander to you.

I think by default, you've admitted your error of reasoning.

Give me one good reason that happiness is worth pursuing in the first place.

Upon attaining it, you will be happy. The happiness of others has promoted the survival of the human species.

why you are so dogmatically clinging to the happiness delusion.

You haven't proven it's a delusion in any way at all. When asked to prove anything, you ducked and covered. I suspect that basically you're just miserable and frustrated and want others to join in your club, because you don't know how to get to the happiness club. Your invite is not tempting.

I don't understand a word of your electrical network mumbo jumbo.

Then you need to go over your basic biology classes again and remember what a neuron is. If you don't have a good grasp of the physical basis of reality, you're going to have a lot of trouble with all kinds of 'delusions'.

I had a friend of mine going on about some nonsense about existence, somewhat but not exactly like you. So I grabbed his wrist and put it in a very painful lock. It was an unkind move on my part, and I don't think we had quite enough trust in our friendship for that to have been an entirely appropriate thing to do. But I made my point, I think. He stopped wallowing in nonsense about experience, at least at that juncture of conversation.

Maybe you need someone to smack you in the face with an iron bar? Or maybe you could just run yourself into a brick wall, to remember what experience is.

 

[charliepoo]

Wow. The title of this thread is loaded! What is my excuse? Is the OP shaming me for choosing not to be vegan?

 

[bvanevery]

Wow. The title of this thread is loaded! What is my excuse? Is the OP shaming me for choosing not to be vegan?

I assume so. Why shouldn't he? 'Cuz you like to feel good about your actions or something like that?

 

[Grayman]

People do things that make them unhappy all the time. People have greater needs than just happiness.

 

[Brontosaurie]

People do things that make them unhappy all the time. People have greater needs than just happiness.

Such as power. People are in tremendous need for power.