I am going to be on discussion about veganism



  • This is going to be done between me and another twitter user tomorrow. I am going to be speaking live.

    If I don't get doxed in the convo I will post the whole thing here tomorrow night.



  • Sounds interesting, I've been trying to eat healthy since the start of the year and that kind of lead me towards, at least a more, vegetarian diet.

    My grandpa had a farm so I'm intimately familiar with the food chain for certain animals and I'm OK with it. Abuses and certain factory farming practices not so much.



  • @cursorkeys I actually eat quite veggie because of my current GF.

    I asked the chat dude not to dox my real information though there are 2 people on here that could.

    He seems cool with it.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Good luck and have fun! <3



  • It is going to happen about 1am GMT.



  • @lucas1 if this turn into flames, will you have a beef with the vegan opponent?



  • @wharrgarbl the dude is okay, so in all seriousness no.



  • It is all happening.



  • I could probably manage to only eat vegan snacks.


  • area_can

    @boomzilla I had some vegan mac and cheese and a burger in LA once, and it was not bad! Different, yes. Not at all what I was expecting, but taste-wise I liked it. That said, it was one of those trendy instagram-friendly places and a bit pricey, so maybe you get what you pay for.

    For some reason, they didn't have regular ketchup there, and instead only had beet ketchup. This was also different. Not as tasty as the rest of the food...



  • Veganism is a luxury, so I don't buy into the morality of it.

    If you want to do it, then you do you, but good luck if you're in a survival situation. I have no problem skinning an animal for clothes if the world goes to shit. Vegans won't either, whether they die and no longer care or live through it and no longer care.

    The survival bit is a little extreme, because all morality kind of goes to shit. But for veganism, it goes away a lot quicker than anything else. Recession and the only clothes on the shelves is made from wool, or the only protein left is red meat? Whereas, you can hold up treating your neighbor good for a whole lot longer.



  • @xaade said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    Veganism is a luxury, so I don't buy into the morality of it.

    If you want to do it, then you do you, but good luck if you're in a survival situation. I have no problem skinning an animal for clothes if the world goes to shit. Vegans won't either, whether they die and no longer care or live through it and no longer care.

    The survival bit is a little extreme, because all morality kind of goes to shit. But for veganism, it goes away a lot quicker than anything else. Recession and the only clothes on the shelves is made from wool, or the only protein left is red meat? Whereas, you can hold up treating your neighbor good for a whole lot longer.

    I dunno, I figure the point of veg(etari)anism is that animals are being slaughtered en masse, taken from children, placed in horrible environments, etc. and that makes it immoral. If you're hunting the animals yourself, then you're putting it back how nature intended it, and the rules of veganism no longer apply.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    taken from children,

    Is there a grocery store where I can guarantee the meat I buy was some child's pet? I'd pay extra.

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If you're hunting the animals yourself, then you're putting it back how nature intended it, and the rules of veganism no longer apply.

    There's no such thing as "nature intended". If we lived in 30,000 BC we might be having this same conversation but saying nature never "intended" us to hunt by running large animals over cliffs.



  • @blakeyrat said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    Is there a grocery store where I can guarantee the meat I buy was some child's pet? I'd pay extra.

    No, I mean parents taken from their children intentionally, for lactation/veal/whatever.

    @blakeyrat said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    There's no such thing as "nature intended". If we lived in 30,000 BC we might be having this same conversation but saying nature never "intended" us to hunt by running large animals over cliffs.

    It's a fuzzy line. And I'm maintaining that it exists, even if I don't care about it personally.



  • @xaade said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    Veganism is a luxury, so I don't buy into the morality of it.

    If you want to do it, then you do you, but good luck if you're in a survival situation. I have no problem skinning an animal for clothes if the world goes to shit. Vegans won't either, whether they die and no longer care or live through it and no longer care.

    The survival bit is a little extreme, because all morality kind of goes to shit. But for veganism, it goes away a lot quicker than anything else. Recession and the only clothes on the shelves is made from wool, or the only protein left is red meat? Whereas, you can hold up treating your neighbor good for a whole lot longer.

    Holy Cow, Batman! There are plenty of examples from elsewhere in the world where people choose to starve rather than face Eternal Damnation and a reset of their merry-go-round on the Mahayana.


  • BINNED

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing



  • @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    If veganism was adopted on a large scale, these animals would simply stop being reared. So unless the switch happened magically all in one night, nothing worse would happen for any of those animals.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    No, I mean parents taken from their children intentionally, for lactation/veal/whatever.

    Mmmmmmmm, veal.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    No, I mean parents taken from their children intentionally, for lactation/veal/whatever.

    Do you mean... cow parents?

    Who cares? They're cows.



  • @heterodox said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    No, I mean parents taken from their children intentionally, for lactation/veal/whatever.

    Mmmmmmmm, veal.

    You're making me hungry. In the UK you can even eat it without feeling guilty, we outlawed the inhumane confinement decades ago. Breading veal should be a culinary hate-crime though, might as well serve it with ketchup...heathens.



  • @mikael_svahnberg said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    There are plenty of examples from elsewhere in the world where people choose to starve

    They tend to have more mental fortitude than your average latte sipper.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cursorkeys said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    In the UK you can even eat it without feeling guilty, we outlawed the inhumane confinement decades ago.

    One of the things I like about living in Texas is that free-range beef is widely available. You can get it at any Kroger, and you can even see the cattle farms scattered throughout the suburbs.



  • @antiquarian said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @cursorkeys said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    In the UK you can even eat it without feeling guilty, we outlawed the inhumane confinement decades ago.

    One of the things I like about living in Texas is that free-range beef is widely available. You can get it at any Kroger, and you can even see the cattle farms scattered throughout the suburbs.

    That's what I find so humorous about all of this.

    "You country people should feel bad about how you treat animals."

    "Well, it's largely due to the population density of city folk. I raise my own chickens for my own eggs out here."



  • @cursorkeys said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    In the UK you can even eat it without feeling guilty

    In the US, too! Well, it's often expensive, so if I eat it too much I'll feel guilty because I probably shouldn't be spending so much money on food.

    Also, I came here to post this:

    0_1504895964361_5015673e-aecf-4c6a-83c3-45cb4bf0bdac-image.png

    Yeah...it's not the food that's the problem.



  • @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    See, this is what I mean by 'as nature intended'. WE did this. WE fucked with evolution so that this happened.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    See, this is what I mean by 'as nature intended'. WE did this. WE fucked with evolution so that this happened.

    Why are WE external to the environment and evolution in these discussions?



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    See, this is what I mean by 'as nature intended'. WE did this. WE fucked with evolution so that this happened.

    Yeah, well, we're part of nature, too.



  • @xaade said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    They tend to have more mental fortitudedisorders than your average latte sipper.

    If you would starve because a little book tells you not to eat perfectly good food that's not something to be admired.



  • @coldandtired said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If you would starve because a little book tells you not to eat perfectly good food that's not something to be admired.

    That, and not all of those little books tell you not to eat perfectly good food, if you don't stop halfway through.



  • @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    See, this is what I mean by 'as nature intended'. WE did this. WE fucked with evolution so that this happened.

    Yeah, well, we're part of nature, too.

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    @xaade said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @coldandtired said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If you would starve because a little book tells you not to eat perfectly good food that's not something to be admired.

    That, and not all of those little books tell you not to eat perfectly good food, if you don't stop halfway through.

    What are you referencing here?



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    No we don't. We think we do, but we don't.



  • @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    No we don't. We think we do, but we don't.

    *claps for boomzilla*

    Care to, y'know, conclude that with literally anything? Provide explanation? Logic? :trolleybus:es that pretend to be logic?



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    No we don't. We think we do, but we don't.

    *claps for boomzilla*

    Care to, y'know, conclude that with literally anything? Provide explanation? Logic? :trolleybus:es that pretend to be logic?

    We're subject to all of the laws of physics, etc, as the rest of the animal kingdom. We're better an manipulating stuff to our advantage, but we're not exempt from anything.





  • @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    No we don't. We think we do, but we don't.

    *claps for boomzilla*

    Care to, y'know, conclude that with literally anything? Provide explanation? Logic? :trolleybus:es that pretend to be logic?

    We're subject to all of the laws of physics, etc, as the rest of the animal kingdom. We're better an manipulating stuff to our advantage, but we're not exempt from anything.

    No shit we're subject to the laws of physics. But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them with things like e.g. hospitals. Back in the olden days, if you had a disability, you died. Now, we have all sorts of corrective surgery, prosthetics, etc. which ensure that you'll not only not die, but probably have children who can inherit your disability. For example: near/farsightedness, high-functioning autism, life-threatening allergies, etc.


  • area_pol

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them with things like e.g. hospitals.

    Or you could say the current evolutionary pressure selects for good access to medicine - which depends on your environment and social status. That is nothing new - all organisms depend on the resources in their environment, and there are non-human species with a social hierarchy.

    Your view of selection/evolution as optimizing biological organisms based on the immediate capabilities of their biological bodies is too narrow to be accurate.
    Evolution is not a fair trial of your genetic fitness, or a carefully designed optimization algorithm. It is a statistical observation about systems in which something mutates and replicates.
    You can observe it in systems other than biological life: the evolution of ideas, styles, languages, religions or software.
    The way to opt-out of evolution is to stop mutating or replicating.

    Finally, if your defined laws of nature are easily circumvented, they are bad laws to begin with.
    We can see that many mammals are covered in fur, walk on four legs and have tails.
    Does it mean humans are also guilty of violating the natural law that mammals should have fur, a tail and walk on four legs?



  • @adynathos said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them with things like e.g. hospitals.

    Or you could say the current evolutionary pressure selects for good access to medicine - which depends on your environment and social status. That is nothing new - all organisms depend on the resources in their environment, and there are non-human species with a social hierarchy.

    Their social hierarchy is based on hereditary traits, furthering evolution. Whereas ours is mostly based on heredity, full stop. As a society, our current factors of success can't be bred for.

    Your view of selection/evolution as optimizing biological organisms based on the immediate capabilities of their biological bodies is too narrow to be accurate.
    Evolution is not a fair trial of your genetic fitness, or a carefully designed optimization algorithm. It is a statistical observation about systems in which something mutates and replicates.

    Replication here being dependent on genetic fitness, which used to be a pretty good optimization algorithm. I have no idea what you're saying here. Plus, I said natural selection, not evolution. They describe different things.

    You can observe it in systems other than biological life: the evolution of ideas, styles, languages, religions or software.

    We are none of those things. Evolution of species, of life, is done by natural selection.

    Finally, if your defined laws of nature are easily circumvented, they are bad laws to begin with.
    We can see that many mammals are covered in fur, walk on four legs and have tails.
    Does it mean humans are also guilty of violating the natural law that mammals should have fur, a tail and walk on four legs?

    :wtf: Many mammals fit those characteristics. Nobody said there was a natural law saying that mammals had to fit those characteristics. Humans created the term "mammal" in the first place. And what are you trying to say with this? Are you saying that natural selection isn't a law of nature?


  • area_pol

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    You can observe it in systems other than biological life: the evolution of ideas, styles, languages, religions or software.

    We are none of those things. Evolution of species, of life, is done by natural selection.

    Not any more.
    Most organisms can only transfer genetic information to the next generation.
    But humans can also transfer other learned information.
    Humans with superior non-genetic info (society structure, technology) can easily outperform other humans or animals with better genes, yet lacking that information.

    So natural selection still holds if you notice that non-genetic information can be an evolutionary advantage.



  • @pie_flavor essentially, your argument is that "any species capable of altering the living conditions to the benefit and proliferation of the species is putting itself above the laws of evolution and natural selection."

    No, it is not. The species have just nullified some selectors in favour of others. Imagine, if you will, a breed of finchs that move to a new island...



  • @adynathos said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    You can observe it in systems other than biological life: the evolution of ideas, styles, languages, religions or software.

    We are none of those things. Evolution of species, of life, is done by natural selection.

    Not any more.
    Most organisms can only transfer genetic information to the next generation.
    But humans can also transfer other learned information.
    Humans with superior non-genetic info (society structure, technology) can easily outperform other humans or animals with better genes, yet lacking that information.

    So natural selection still holds if you notice that non-genetic information can be an evolutionary advantage.

    But it's not. Learned information can go to anyone, and people born into powerful families don't actually have any advantage other than what their current families choose to provide.

    @mikael_svahnberg said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor essentially, your argument is that "any species capable of altering the living conditions to the benefit and proliferation of the species is putting itself above the laws of evolution and natural selection."

    No, it is not. The species have just nullified some selectors in favour of others. Imagine, if you will, a breed of finchs that move to a new island...

    No. Any species capable of cheating natural death and that reproduces even with genetically inferior members is putting itself above the laws of evolution and natural selection.
    Even your example doesn't make sense. The finches aren't altering the living conditions to the benefit of the species, they would actually be slightly detrimental until natural selection and evolution took their course and the finches evolved.



  • @pie_flavor

    genetically inferior

    But they are not inferior. That's the point. What used to be a handicap isn't anymore, because living conditions have changed.



  • @mikael_svahnberg said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor

    genetically inferior

    But they are not inferior. That's the point. What used to be a handicap isn't anymore, because living conditions have changed.

    Yes, they are. Just because they can still survive in their environment doesn't make them not inferior.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @mikael_svahnberg said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor

    genetically inferior

    But they are not inferior. That's the point. What used to be a handicap isn't anymore, because living conditions have changed.

    Yes, they are. Just because they can still survive in their environment doesn't make them not inferior.

    Did you know that goldsmiths during the bronze age were extremely near-sighted? The job was hereditary, and an eye for details was required. To the extent that a modern day goldsmiths can't reproduce as tiny details. Inferior indeed.

    If we get blown back to the stone age then yes, plenty of people will have a hard time. But not now.



  • @remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing

    If veganism was adopted on a large scale, these animals would simply stop being reared. So unless the switch happened magically all in one night, nothing worse would happen for any of those animals.

    But that only works for the next generations. What about the current one?

    And we'd have to actively prevent the current generation from reproducing so that those varieties die out and future generations don't require frequent milking or shearing.



  • @antiquarian said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    free-range beef ... cattle farms

    E_TYPE_ERROR
    Free-range cattle would be on a ranch (with no fences if it's actually free range).

    scattered throughout the suburbs.

    Oh, well, then. Carry on with your silly city-folk advertisement propaganda. :tropical_drink:



  • @xaade said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @coldandtired said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    If you would starve because a little book tells you not to eat perfectly good food that's not something to be admired.

    That, and not all of those little books tell you not to eat perfectly good food, if you don't stop halfway through.

    What are you referencing here?

    Leviticus 11

    1 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
    ...
    9 “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.
    ...
    13 “And these you shall detest among the birds;[a] they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: <list of foul fowl>
    ...
    20 “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground.
    ...
    27 And all that walk on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you.
    ...
    41 “Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten. 42 Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable.
    ...
    46 This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

    VS.
    Acts 10

    9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour[b] to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

    and Acts 15

    28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them

    So that's a different level of "law" than the laws of physics?


  • area_pol

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    But it's not. Learned information can go to anyone, and people born into powerful families don't actually have any advantage other than what their current families choose to provide.

    Yes, evolution of non-genetic information is more complicated:
    Different classes of information - such as ideas, beliefs, customs, countries, religions, dynasties, technology, fashion - mutate, spread among humans and evolve.
    It is no longer possible to pinpoint the "instances" (single organisms in genetic evolution), but we can see the effects in civilization - how new ideas replace some of the old.

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    Any species capable of cheating natural death and that reproduces even with genetically inferior members is putting itself above the laws of evolution and natural selection.

    If your narrowly defined "laws of natural selection and evolution" can be broken, they are not natural (physical) laws.
    A counter-experiment disproves a proposed law - that is normal procedure in science.

    Anyway, genetic natural selection shows visible effects after a very big number of generations, thus has no relevance to the human civilization which lasts for only thousands of years.


  • area_pol



  • @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    @pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:

    That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.

    No we don't. We think we do, but we don't.

    *claps for boomzilla*

    Care to, y'know, conclude that with literally anything? Provide explanation? Logic? :trolleybus:es that pretend to be logic?

    We're subject to all of the laws of physics, etc, as the rest of the animal kingdom. We're better an manipulating stuff to our advantage, but we're not exempt from anything.

    No shit we're subject to the laws of physics. But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them with things like e.g. hospitals. Back in the olden days, if you had a disability, you died. Now, we have all sorts of corrective surgery, prosthetics, etc. which ensure that you'll not only not die, but probably have children who can inherit your disability. For example: near/farsightedness, high-functioning autism, life-threatening allergies, etc.

    We've bent the fitness threshold in some ways but we're not exempt from it at all. Our environment has also changed in some ways and even if you don't die you may not be passing on your genes. For instance, see the Manosphere thread.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.