RE: Vegans: Moronic Uneducated Cunts?

[The6thMessenger]

Response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql7pB9DLkUM

Personally, i don't like people who are holier-than-thou, not Vegans. Vegans usually do that, but religious people just as well, not all but commonly.

Certain Vegans say like "Meat is murder", i understand that they value non-human life, good for them. Other people do it for health benefits, or altogether with valuing life. And then there is this something on 9gag that he was "vegan"/"vegetarian" because he "hates plants", what a guy right?

As for the video, it's just there is a line between domestic livestock, and wild animals. Sharks from the ocean(s) (and sea(s)) are wild, while commonly what you see on the groceries are bred and grown exactly for food, while a Shark is not. (Yes, still there are the issue of hunting in the wild for food).

"Cognitive Dissonance", kind of yes, people just have different values for different things, i can't say "that's how it is" so we should just accept it, but still it's just "that's how it is". A working Prius/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (basically a free car) for a birthday gift is a bit more valuable than a pack of gum from another, at least based on our materialistic nature, and just as well that's how we value Sharks and non-shark-food-things-in-the-supermarket, because Sharks aren't that worth to eat (or at least not for eating), while livestocks are.

Anyways, like i said earlier i hate people who are "holier-than-thou" which is far common on Vegans -- or at least the prominent Vegans are like that. So far the most annoying one is VeganGains.

As for their views, sure i agree that killing non-humans are bad, they deserve to live too. But meat is largely in our culture, in itself is a social glue, so forcing it to be removed has a massive social implication as well. In itself not entirely from a nature point of view, but rather it also take from a sociological point of view.

I'm not saying that all culture-based things can also be justified, like if rape or violence is a social glue to a culture then it's okay and we can just look away, no.

Eating meat is part of us to some extent, we somewhat crave it like we crave sex (intercourse). Of course not what we crave is good or in itself immediately acceptable just because "we crave it", but still it's part of human lives to satisfy themselves, and there are many people who chose to satisfy themselves in eating meat, as it is tasty especially b-a-c-o-n (can we be mature and not replace it with "penis"?). And that's like a motivation for living, to make life worth living, somewhat rooted in psychology of us too. I don't say it's okay because "it's in our thinking" makes it okay, but it's okay for others and not okay for others.

Morality isn't that objective at all, it's mostly what is and isn't acceptable to society, and to each and every other individual. It just so happen that your morality or other vegan's morality differs. Again it does not make anything okay just because you have different ideas, but again we are in no position of what to say is ultimately good or ultimately bad.

Our meat consumption is somewhat unprecedented, and it's consequences are dire in the long run, i will give Vegans that, but still removing meat still have a bit of negative impacts that others would really hate at all. If it were a delicacy, a candy, as dessert which does not comprise the large percent of our daily diet, perhaps it can work that way. Though meat-eating is not exactly eliminated, it should be gravely lessened, demands go down and so does supply.

Meat-eaters like to eat meat, Vegans don't like other people and themselves eating meat. But you (vegans and meat-eaters) have to understand that what the other likes is the total opposite of what the other like, and the only way (as i see it) to get around that is to compromise.

[Jebus]

Meat-eaters like to eat meat, Vegans don't like other people and themselves eating meat. But you (vegans and meat-eaters) have to understand that what the other likes is the total opposite of what the other like, and the only way (as i see it) to get around that is to compromise.

Rapists like to rape. Non-rapists don't like other people and themselves raping. But you (rapists and non-rapists) have to understand that what the other likes is the total opposite of what the other like, and the only way (as I see it) to get around that is to compromise.

[The6thMessenger]

Meat-eaters like to eat meat, Vegans don't like other people and themselves eating meat. But you (vegans and meat-eaters) have to understand that what the other likes is the total opposite of what the other like, and the only way (as i see it) to get around that is to compromise.

Rapists like to rape. Non-rapists don't like other people and themselves raping. But you (rapists and non-rapists) have to understand that what the other likes is the total opposite of what the other like, and the only way (as I see it) to get around that is to compromise.

Why do you feel the need to do that? Is it all word play to you?

[Jebus]

Why do you feel the need to do that? Is it all word play to you?

I was trying to make a point. Did you understand that point?

[The6thMessenger]

Why do you feel the need to do that? Is it all word play to you?

I was trying to make a point. Did you understand that point?

If your point was you didn't get the context, i guess i did.

Raping is generally a crime, while eating meat is generally not. In itself doesn't really tell what is right or wrong, but assuming that we take account of international law of human rights, it is a question moral codes or rather which is right or wrong, and Rape is already generally accepted to be a crime and direct abuse of human rights, while eating meat is not.

[Jebus]

Raping is generally a crime, while eating meat is generally not. In itself doesn't really tell what is right or wrong, but assuming that we take account of international law of human rights, it is a question moral codes or rather which is right or wrong, and Rape is already generally accepted to be a crime and direct abuse of human rights, while eating meat is not.

Rather than let lawmakers and the general public dictate to you what is right or wrong, why not let the consequences of the action decide its moral value?

[The6thMessenger]

Raping is generally a crime, while eating meat is generally not. In itself doesn't really tell what is right or wrong, but assuming that we take account of international law of human rights, it is a question moral codes or rather which is right or wrong, and Rape is already generally accepted to be a crime and direct abuse of human rights, while eating meat is not.

Rather than let lawmakers and the general public dictate to you what is right or wrong, why not let the consequences of the action decide its moral value?

Still depends on what consequences are we talking about. Procuring meat has done so much bad in the environment, eating meat does something bad in our body, just as well you have to take the life of another living being, whether you are eating meat or vegetables.

Now morality is generally what is acceptable and not acceptable to society, in itself in a sociological point of view. Now how do you say whether the consequence is bad or good?

If eating meat is healthy, and doesn't harm the environment but the one you are eating, can we say that it has less-bad consequence?

Admittedly, being a meat eater has bad consequences but just as well good consequences, just as well Vegan and other ethics of eating, it's just a matter of perspective. As for my perspective, i have repeatedly said that minimize but not totally eradicate meat eating.

As for the morality and consequences, i don't know what to tell you. Morality is really in a sociological issue, what is right and wrong is literally judged by your society as a whole, and if lawmakers won't rule it by law that something is illegal because it's bad, the Mores will kick in and further discourage an act because a member of the society risks being an outcast or exile either being really thrown out of the Society or being treated badly while within. Now admittedly, meat eating has bad consequences in the long run, but if we can eliminate those consequences to a minimum, like procuring meat no longer harms the environment, or eating meat no longer harms the body, but still has to take an animals' life, can we say that's a less-bad consequence?

In life, there are always consequences, and the consequences aren't always of the same value as other consequences, we may choose a path with many bad consequences than good, because we value the good consequences more and see it outweighs the disadvantages. Granted, eating meat has a lot of disadvantages that would weigh more than the good ones, but if we can minimize that, can we finally eat meat?

As for my position, yes Meat eating has a lot of bad consequences, but there are good consequences too. It's just the matter of perspective, and yes a lot of bad consequences outweigh the good consequences, but if we can lessen the majority of bad consequences in which what i am proposing, it can be a less-bad consequence i can accept.

[bobo0100]

As for the morality and consequences, i don't know what to tell you. Morality is really in a sociological issue, what is right and wrong is literally judged by your society as a whole, and if lawmakers won't rule it by law that something is illegal because it's bad, the Mores will kick in and further discourage an act because a member of the society risks being an outcast or exile either being really thrown out of the Society or being treated badly while within. Now admittedly, meat eating has bad consequences in the long run, but if we can eliminate those consequences to a minimum, like procuring meat no longer harms the environment, or eating meat no longer harms the body, but still has to take an animals' life, can we say that's a less-bad consequence?

This is an almost non-existent view of ethics amongst experts in the field of ethics. Although the field of philosophy has come major trust issues amongst the general public. If you took some time to read into moral philosophy I'm sure you would no longer hold this to be true.

[The6thMessenger]

As for the morality and consequences, i don't know what to tell you. Morality is really in a sociological issue, what is right and wrong is literally judged by your society as a whole, and if lawmakers won't rule it by law that something is illegal because it's bad, the Mores will kick in and further discourage an act because a member of the society risks being an outcast or exile either being really thrown out of the Society or being treated badly while within. Now admittedly, meat eating has bad consequences in the long run, but if we can eliminate those consequences to a minimum, like procuring meat no longer harms the environment, or eating meat no longer harms the body, but still has to take an animals' life, can we say that's a less-bad consequence?

This is an almost non-existent view of ethics amongst experts in the field of ethics. Although the field of philosophy has come major trust issues amongst the general public. If you took some time to read into moral philosophy I'm sure you would no longer hold this to be true.

And therein lies the problem. I did not argue the philosophical side, i argued the anthropological and the sociological side. Also has something to do with Psychology.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores

"Cognitive Dissonance" other people say for eating meat of live-stock but saving a poor beached shark, but i think really it has something to do with culture, what is taboo or not. Cognitive Dissonance might be possible, or simply eating non-standard meat is taboo to a certain society that is why it is frowned upon.

[bobo0100]

And therein lies the problem. I did not argue the philosophical side, i argued the anthropological and the sociological side. Also has something to do with Psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores

You stated explicitly "As for the morality and consequences." Ethics is the study of good and bad, and is squarely within the school of philosophy. we ask not what do humans think? But rather, what ought we do? I would go as far as to say if you are addressing the morality and consequences you ought to ask the second question, not the first.

p.s. Its good form on this forum to quote the minimum amount required to advise the reader on what your addressing.