Support NeoGAF

[Ionian]

They are using language incorrectly because they want to get credit for something they don't do to get social credit. If people think I look stupid for my stance on this issue, I don't care. I don't value the opinion of anyone who could be so fundamentally wrong about such a basic question as to whether or not eggs constitute animal flesh.



The fact that many people are dishonest hipsters doesn't mean they are correct. That is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.

Is a human females eggs flesh?

No. It can become it but it's a batch of cells.

What part of Reeetarddera you spill out from? If you're trolling you need to up your game as you self admittidly said you won't listen to others reasoning. Why not leave the thread when given evidence to refute your claim then? What's to gain here, you just want to argue in a a vacuum about eggs?

hahaha, some lonely life you must lead. Funny though, what other bizarre stances do you have? This is quite amusing.

 

[Kimahri]

I'm aware of this definition. It doesn't change my opinion. I think it's dishonest, and that people who use this definition are trendy hipsters who are doing it for social points. From my perspective they are bending reality so they can apply labels to themselves that simply do not apply.

Ovo-vegetarianism as a term and way of life has existed for decades.

And no, eggs are not meat. Most eggs bought in a grocery store aren't even fertilized, and wouldn't turn into a chicken even if given the chance.

 

[Jsisto]

Maybe just let people do what they want if it makes them happy and doesn’t effect you at all.

 

[Taxexemption]

Ovo-vegetarianism as a term and way of life has existed for decades.

And no, eggs are not meat. Most eggs bought in a grocery store aren't even fertilized, and wouldn't turn into a chicken even if given the chance.

Is a human females eggs flesh?

No. It can become it but it's a batch of cells.

What part of Reeetarddera you spill out from? If you're trolling you need to up your game as you self admittidly said you won't listen to others reasoning. Why not leave the thread when given evidence to refute your claim then? What's to gain here, you just want to argue in a a vacuum about eggs?

hahaha, some lonely life you must lead. Funny though, what other bizarre stances do you have? This is quite amusing.

As you can see from this link, eggs contain protein.

Calories in Egg (Whole) and Nutrition Facts

There are 74 calories in 1 large Egg (Whole). Get full nutrition facts and other common serving sizes of Egg (Whole) including 1 small and 1 medium.

www.fatsecret.com

Is it animal protein, or plant protein?

And to answer your question, a human female egg is human female flesh.


As for what is to gain, I think the truth is very important, and that if you accept this kind of nonsense with definitions you will accept other abuses of language. A big part of what is wrong with our society is people accepting abuses of language. In order to be tolerant, we have continually re-defined any number of terms to make people happy, and this is part of that. In an abstract manner, I think the reason we probably won't colonize the stars is because we are willing to accept any nonsense as true in order to avoid hurting peoples feelings. Your girlfriend was not a vegetarian.

 

[Ionian]

As you can see from this link, eggs contain protein.

Calories in Egg (Whole) and Nutrition Facts

There are 74 calories in 1 large Egg (Whole). Get full nutrition facts and other common serving sizes of Egg (Whole) including 1 small and 1 medium.

www.fatsecret.com

Is it animal protein, or plant protein?

And to answer your question, a human female egg is human female flesh.


As for what is to gain, I think the truth is very important, and that if you accept this kind of nonsense with definitions you will accept other abuses of language. A big part of what is wrong with our society is people accepting abuses of language. In order to be tolerant, we have continually re-defined any number of terms to make people happy, and this is part of that. In an abstract manner, I think the reason we probably won't colonize the stars is because we are willing to accept any nonsense as true in order to avoid hurting peoples feelings. Your girlfriend was not a vegetarian.

You are the very definition of someone who loves to waft the smell of their own farts into their nostrils and write down a grade in a diary.

Yes everyone else is wrong because you say so. Also what's this about language anyway? You keep harping on about it.

So you don't agree, fine. Won't stop Vegetarians eating them, so get used to it and go weep in a corner like the baby you are. As I pointed out Vegetarian restaurants serve them, maybe your time might be better spent emailing them your grieviences like the grouchy old troll you are.

Do so and PLEASE post the replies. I dare you. Even better try and do it in person to a chef and post your bruises afterwards.

Put your money where your mouth is bucko.

EDIT: There's also protein in plants. They aren't flesh you fool.

 

[Jsisto]

I think the distinction is that it is not live animal protein. It is an unfertilized egg. You can argue about abuses of language all day, but the FACT is it is generally understood that vegetarians can eat eggs and still claim to be vegetarians. You don’t have to like it. It doesn’t have to meet your view of language, it’s just the way it is. Again, if it makes them happy, who cares? Why do we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway? That doesn’t make sense, either. What are we supposed to do, stop driving?

 

[Putonahappyface]

I can't speak for others but I seldom eat red meat and primarily eat a mix between a mediterranean and low carb high fat/protein diet. Most days I eat organic eggs, tuna and chicken everyday, along with just about every vegetable going.

I also have a small bowl of mixed berries most days strawberries, raspberries, blackberrys and blue berry's. I also supplement with vitamin d3 and exercise three to four days a week. I could keep going but I won't bore people any longer.

Basically I've struggled with clinical depression amongst a whole host of other mental health problems most of my adult life so for me this case study is Bollocks.

 

[Putonahappyface]

I think the distinction is that it is not live animal protein. It is an unfertilized egg. You can argue about abuses of language all day, but the FACT is it is generally understood that vegetarians can eat eggs and still claim to be vegetarians. You don’t have to like it. It doesn’t have to meet your view of language, it’s just the way it is. Again, if it makes them happy, who cares? Why do we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway? That doesn’t make sense, either. What are we supposed to do, stop driving?

Chicken ovulation.

 

[Kimahri]

As you can see from this link, eggs contain protein.

Calories in Egg (Whole) and Nutrition Facts

There are 74 calories in 1 large Egg (Whole). Get full nutrition facts and other common serving sizes of Egg (Whole) including 1 small and 1 medium.

www.fatsecret.com

Is it animal protein, or plant protein?

And to answer your question, a human female egg is human female flesh.


As for what is to gain, I think the truth is very important, and that if you accept this kind of nonsense with definitions you will accept other abuses of language. A big part of what is wrong with our society is people accepting abuses of language. In order to be tolerant, we have continually re-defined any number of terms to make people happy, and this is part of that. In an abstract manner, I think the reason we probably won't colonize the stars is because we are willing to accept any nonsense as true in order to avoid hurting peoples feelings. Your girlfriend was not a vegetarian.

Uhm, ok.

First, eggs are not meat, they're a byproduct of menstruation. They are an animal product, sure, but there are no muscle fibers which is what meat is.

Second, protein is not what determines whether something is meat or not. There is animal protein in milk, by your logic milk is meat.

 

[Taxexemption]

You are the very definition of someone who loves to waft the smell of their own farts into their nostrils and write down a grade in a diary.

Yes everyone else is wrong because you say so. Also what's this about language anyway? You keep harping on about it.

So you don't agree, fine. Won't stop Vegetarians eating them, so get used to it and go weep in a corner like the baby you are. As I pointed out Vegetarian restaurants serve them, maybe your time might be better spent emailing them your grieviences like the grouchy old troll you are.

Do so and PLEASE post the replies. I dare you. Even better try and do it in person to a chef and post your bruises afterwards.

Put your money where your mouth is bucko.

EDIT: There's also protein in plants. They aren't flesh you fool.

You are a very strange person that you think this is going to result in a fistfight between me and a chef. This honestly doesn't make the top 10 of issues I'm passionate about and am trying to do something about irl. I'm just annoyed that a lot of hipsters confuse people by their use of the word vegetarian, and do so, so that they can claim a label.

I also don't think much of your logical abilities. Your premise is that the chef will fight me physically, and win because he has the correct position on the topic. If I beat up the chef does that make me right? Is this game of Thrones? Do the Gods favor whoever wins fistfights? If I beat up a grade school teacher while yelling 2 + 2 = 5 does that change how math works?

I am more than aware there is protein in plants. I askedwhether eggs contain plant or animal protein.

 

[Jsisto]

You know, people make decisions for other reasons than wanting to be a hipster and claim a label. Ive worked with many vegans and vegetarians, and honestly, they are some of the most charming people I’ve ever met. I can’t think of a time someone has made it a point to tell me they are vegan/vegetarian other than if I offered them food they can’t eat, and….really, what are they supposed to do in that situation? Maybe your personal experience is different, but I feel like you’re letting this modern day piling on of vegans, largely influenced by internet culture, color your perception of real, well meaning people just living their lives. Just something to consider.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Even most meat eaters who are dog lovers value animals more than humans.

Sure, I would believe this but it doesn't quite address what I was saying. I could see people valuing their own pet they grew up with over a human they have never interacted with. That does not mean that individual values dogs over humans, it merely means that this person values something they're deeply attached to over something they're not attached to.

Let's say a vegan saw a burning house with two rooms - in one room is a human they don't know, in the other room is a dog they don't know. The vegan would have time to only save one of them. Whoever isn't saved by the vegan dies. What do you think a vegan would or should do?

 

[Taxexemption]

Sure, I would believe this but it doesn't quite address what I was saying. I could see people valuing their own pet they grew up with over a human they have never interacted with. That does not mean that individual values dogs over humans, it merely means that this person values something they're deeply attached to over something they're not attached to.

Let's say a vegan saw a burning house with two rooms - in one room is a human they don't know, in the other room is a dog they don't know. The vegan would have time to only save one of them. What do you think a vegan would or should do?

Based on the vegetarian/vegans and dog lovers I've known, I would expect them to save the dog over the human baby. The people I've known who are like this will explicitly tell you that animal life is more valuable in general than human life. You should always save the human.

 

[Ionian]

Based on the vegetarian/vegans and dog lovers I've known, I would expect them to save the dog over the human baby. The people I've known who are like this will explicitly tell you that animal life is more valuable in general than human life. You should always save the human.

Troll confirmed, you just said "Based on the vegetarian/vegans and dog lovers I've known, I would expect them to save the dog over the human baby."

No baby is mentioned in the statement.

Dude, UP YOUR GAME. You're being outclassed here by people making sense.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Based on the vegetarian/vegans and dog lovers I've known, I would expect them to save the dog over the human baby. The people I've known who are like this will explicitly tell you that animal life is more valuable in general than human life. You should always save the human.

Why do you think a vegan would value a human over an animal? Just be precise in your language.

 

[Taxexemption]

Troll confirmed, you just said "Based on the vegetarian/vegans and dog lovers I've known, I would expect them to save the dog over the human baby."

No baby is mentioned in the statement.

Dude, UP YOUR GAME. You're being outclassed here by people making sense.

I used baby to make it an even better argument, as most people would assume a human baby to not have done anything wrong and therefore is a better example of a human person who would be worth saving. Furthermore the small size of the baby makes it easier to save, and bypasses a bunch of other common arguments that come up when people debate this like "Yeah, I could totally carry a dog out of a building, but due to my strength I could not carry a person out." I've seen people have these kinds of debates.

Why do you think a vegan would value a human over an animal? Just be precise in your language.

The problem is I think a lot of them don't. Why should they? They are human, we live in a society, if someone doesn't value human life inherently that's a problem. I could explain this further, but I don't think that is what you were asking.

Why do I think they don't value human life? I think they have something close to a religious perspective where they view pollution of the environment or consumption of certain products as being akin to sinful behavior. Basically they view a lot of human action as evil, and the actions animals take as morally neutral or good.

I have met vegetarians who are that way purely because they believe it's a good diet. I've met one family like that, compared to meeting a lot of people who have explained a viewpoint like I described in the previous paragraph.

 

[Ionian]

I used baby to make it an even better argument, as most people would assume a human baby to not have done anything wrong and therefore is a better example of a human person who would be worth saving. Furthermore the small size of the baby makes it easier to save, and bypasses a bunch of other common arguments that come up when people debate this like "Yeah, I could totally carry a dog out of a building, but due to my strength I could not carry a person out." I've seen people have these kinds of debates.



The problem is I think a lot of them don't. Why should they? They are human, we live in a society, if someone doesn't value human life inherently that's a problem. I could explain this further, but I don't think that is what you were asking.

Why do I think they don't value human life? I think they have something close to a religious perspective where they view pollution of the environment or consumption of certain products as being akin to sinful behavior. Basically they view a lot of human action as evil, and the actions animals take as morally neutral or good.

I have met vegetarians who are that way purely because they believe it's a good diet. I've met one family like that, compared to meeting a lot of people who have explained a viewpoint like I described in the previous paragraph.

So you're admitting to making shit up that wasn't posted to fit your narrative?

Interesting ...

Please continue, let's see how much bigger a hole you can dig. I'm curious.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

The problem is I think a lot of them don't. Why should they? They are human, we live in a society, if someone doesn't value human life inherently that's a problem. I could explain this further, but I don't think that is what you were asking.

Why do I think they don't value human life? I think they have something close to a religious perspective where they view pollution of the environment or consumption of certain products as being akin to sinful behavior. Basically they view a lot of human action as evil, and the actions animals take as morally neutral or good.

I have met vegetarians who are that way purely because they believe it's a good diet. I've met one family like that, compared to meeting a lot of people who have explained a viewpoint like I described in the previous paragraph.

Obviously, I'm not familiar with any of the individuals you personally know (and obviously dislike) so I can't really speak on that. Naturally, a vegan does not value animals over humans. They merely advocate to stop killing and torturing animals needlessly, when alternatives are readily available. That seems like a, at least morally, low bar. Few non-vegans would make it through slaughterhouse footage I think.

 

[QSD]

I used baby to make it an even better argument, as most people would assume a human baby to not have done anything wrong and therefore is a better example of a human person who would be worth saving. Furthermore the small size of the baby makes it easier to save, and bypasses a bunch of other common arguments that come up when people debate this like "Yeah, I could totally carry a dog out of a building, but due to my strength I could not carry a person out." I've seen people have these kinds of debates.



The problem is I think a lot of them don't. Why should they? They are human, we live in a society, if someone doesn't value human life inherently that's a problem. I could explain this further, but I don't think that is what you were asking.

Why do I think they don't value human life? I think they have something close to a religious perspective where they view pollution of the environment or consumption of certain products as being akin to sinful behavior. Basically they view a lot of human action as evil, and the actions animals take as morally neutral or good.

I have met vegetarians who are that way purely because they believe it's a good diet. I've met one family like that, compared to meeting a lot of people who have explained a viewpoint like I described in the previous paragraph.

I don usually agree with mr exemption, but on this point he's right, there are quite a number of people who actually believe that humanity is some kind of plague on the planet. When an animal destroys its natural environment through overpopulation (which happens fairly often in nature) that's just nature taking its course, but when human beings do it, it's some kind of abomination against the earth. If animals kill to eat, that's just instinct, again nature taking its course. If a human being does it, it's murder and if you're lucky, also torture. Some of these people will even own cats and be totally enamoured with them, even while they kill and torture for pleasure. So yeah, on the whole the anti-human bias thing that T Taxexemption is describing here is quite familiar to me. I've even had one colleague who was basically of the opinion that humans can be cruel, but animals can't be by definition!

Human beings are animals, are part of nature. What we do is natural behaviour in every way a lion's or hippo's behaviour is.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

If animals kill to eat, that's just instinct, again nature taking its course. If a human being does it, it's murder and if you're lucky, also torture. Some of these people will even own cats and be totally enamoured with them, even while they kill and torture for pleasure. So yeah, on the whole the anti-human bias thing that T Taxexemption is describing here is quite familiar to me. I've even had one colleague who was basically of the opinion that humans can be cruel, but animals can't be by definition!

Human beings are animals, are part of nature. What we do is natural behaviour in every way a lion's or hippo's behaviour is.

For one, animals kill out of necessity unlike most humans and secondly, whether or not something is natural does not speak on whether it is the right thing to do. Raping, murdering and pillaging is historically very natural human behaviour, doesn't mean it's desirable.

 

[QSD]

For one, animals kill out of necessity unlike most humans and secondly, whether or not something is natural does not speak on whether it is the right thing to do. Raping, murdering and pillaging is historically very natural human behaviour, doesn't mean it's desirable.

An ordinary house cat kills other animals, but you can't argue it kills out of necessity, it will get fed regardless. It kills because it is in it's nature to do so, and it often kills frivolously and while toying/playing with its prey that is struggling for life. I would say that kind of behaviour is undesirable regardless of whether a human or animal performs it. Lastly, we all kill out of necessity. Vegetarians make a distinction between the moral valence of killing an animal and killing a plant. To me that's just indifferent. Plants don't want to be eaten either.

 

[Kimahri]

An ordinary house cat kills other animals, but you can't argue it kills out of necessity, it will get fed regardless. It kills because it is in it's nature to do so, and it often kills frivolously and while toying/playing with its prey that is struggling for life. I would say that kind of behaviour is undesirable regardless of whether a human or animal performs it. Lastly, we all kill out of necessity. Vegetarians make a distinction between the moral valence of killing an animal and killing a plant. To me that's just indifferent. Plants don't want to be eaten either.

The key aspect you're completely ignoring is that we are, as far as we know, the only species capable of long term planning and seeing the consequences of our actions. We're doing far more damage than any other species ever has. And we know we do it. When elephants flatten an area, they move on, the flattened area grows back. We don't move on, we flatten it and fill it with concrete. That's a key difference.

But to equate the "humans are a plague" view with veganism is a fallacy. I see plenty of omnivores shout out how population control is the answer to our woes.

Also, cats don't "play" with their prey for fun. They are making sure it's dead before they eat it. They'll prod and throw that mouse around until it stops moving.

It's basic survival. A cat's main weapon is it's face. One stray claw or beak and the cat could be blind. It has to be careful or it might die. It looks cruel, for sure, but you can't just project human thought systems to animals anf assume it's a one to one equation.

 

[Ionian]

The key aspect you're completely ignoring is that we are, as far as we know, the only species capable of long term planning and seeing the consequences of our actions. We're doing far more damage than any other species ever has. And we know we do it. When elephants flatten an area, they move on, the flattened area grows back. We don't move on, we flatten it and fill it with concrete. That's a key difference.

But to equate the "humans are a plague" view with veganism is a fallacy. I see plenty of omnivores shout out how population control is the answer to our woes.

Also, cats don't "play" with their prey for fun. They are making sure it's dead before they eat it. They'll prod and throw that mouse around until it stops moving.

It's basic survival. A cat's main weapon is it's face. One stray claw or beak and the cat could be blind. It has to be careful or it might die. It looks cruel, for sure, but you can't just project human thought systems to animals anf assume it's a one to one equation.

Have to disagree with you here on the cat part.

I've had several both family and when I was with my partner, bring an already dead mouse/rat/bird into the house as a gift and then procede to play with it. Maybe it's not all cats but any I've seen will do it. Basically here's my trophy and then proceed to bat it about like it was still alive and they were playing table tennis.

Missus would scream, it gets thrown out the window, cat comes back again after finding it. Out the window again and doors locked, cat eventually sleeps after being pissed off and not getting out. Had to start burying her killls and of course she'd did them up, these things were very obviously dead and the cat knew it.

 

[QSD]

The key aspect you're completely ignoring is that we are, as far as we know, the only species capable of long term planning and seeing the consequences of our actions. We're doing far more damage than any other species ever has. And we know we do it. When elephants flatten an area, they move on, the flattened area grows back. We don't move on, we flatten it and fill it with concrete. That's a key difference.

We are theoretically capable of it, but if you look at the real world and how hard it is to implement large-scale behavioural change (not even related to environment, it can also be other maladaptive behaviour) I would say that there are limitations to our abilities that you are not acknowledging in your zeal to place responsibility at our feet.

But to equate the "humans are a plague" view with veganism is a fallacy. I see plenty of omnivores shout out how population control is the answer to our woes.

it's not equal to, but it's correlated with

Also, cats don't "play" with their prey for fun. They are making sure it's dead before they eat it. They'll prod and throw that mouse around until it stops moving.

It's basic survival. A cat's main weapon is it's face. One stray claw or beak and the cat could be blind. It has to be careful or it might die. It looks cruel, for sure, but you can't just project human thought systems to animals anf assume it's a one to one equation.

there's a kind of sleight of hand you are performing here. You've given an alternate explanation for the behaviour of a cat, but that doesn't actually preclude that the cat simply kills out of malice or cruelty. Do you believe animals are capable of malice or cruelty at all? If not, then our discussion is fairly pointless as if the assumption is that only humans can be cruel, then there isn't much more for me to do to prove an anti-human bias.

 

[Kimahri]

We are theoretically capable of it, but if you look at the real world and how hard it is to implement large-scale behavioural change (not even related to environment, it can also be other maladaptive behaviour) I would say that there are limitations to our abilities that you are not acknowledging in your zeal to place responsibility at our feet.

it's not equal to, but it's correlated with

there's a kind of sleight of hand you are performing here. You've given an alternate explanation for the behaviour of a cat, but that doesn't actually preclude that the cat simply kills out of malice or cruelty. Do you believe animals are capable of malice or cruelty at all? If not, then our discussion is fairly pointless as if the assumption is that only humans can be cruel, then there isn't much more for me to do to prove an anti-human bias.

My belief is we don't know enough about animal psychology to know either way. They might very well be capable of cruelty, my example of the cat was based on me liking cats and reading some litterature on the subject. Like people, animals have personalities and are different. I'm sure some just love to kill, but just because cats do these things when hunting, doesn't mean cats as a species are cruel,and that's why these methods are used.
We are too quick to project ourselves onto other beings.

There is no zeal, I'm just telling you why I think there is a different kind of responsibility on us than on animals.

Your correlation thing is just nonsense, so I'm not gonna bother.

 

[QSD]

My belief is we don't know enough about animal psychology to know either way. They might very well be capable of cruelty, my example of the cat was based on me liking cats and reading some litterature on the subject. Like people, animals have personalities and are different. I'm sure some just love to kill, but just because cats do these things when hunting, doesn't mean cats as a species are cruel,and that's why these methods are used.
We are too quick to project ourselves onto other beings.

The point of my argument was not necessarily to make you judge your cat's behaviour more harshly, rather it was to make you judge human behaviour less harshly.

There is no zeal, I'm just telling you why I think there is a different kind of responsibility on us than on animals.

Look, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your point. My big worry is that if you overestimate our (humans) capabilities and (following from this) our responsibilities, you will see us as always failing or falling short. There's a parallel to the biblical notion of 'original sin'. It's certainly good to be self-critical, but I have seen this trait turn into a kind of (psychologically unhealthy) self loathing which only leads to cynicism, nihilism and (ultimately) inaction (when we in fact desperately need action!)

Your correlation thing is just nonsense, so I'm not gonna bother.

oh come on, you can't even acknowledge there's a correlation?

 

[Ionian]

My belief is we don't know enough about animal psychology to know either way. They might very well be capable of cruelty, my example of the cat was based on me liking cats and reading some litterature on the subject. Like people, animals have personalities and are different. I'm sure some just love to kill, but just because cats do these things when hunting, doesn't mean cats as a species are cruel,and that's why these methods are used.
We are too quick to project ourselves onto other beings.

There is no zeal, I'm just telling you why I think there is a different kind of responsibility on us than on animals.

Your correlation thing is just nonsense, so I'm not gonna bother.

Cats will toy with wounded prey, both big and small cats from housecats to lions. It's just the way it is.

That is a cruelty perceived by the observer, for the cat it's nothing of the sort.

Then you have the fat housecat that is overfed and only wakes up to use the litter tray and eat.

That in turn is cruelty on the cat. However it could be old or have medical conditions or just be a lazy bollocks, I've seen each case.

You're right cats have personalities but is it nature or *nurture? It's both but the cat is still an animal with instincts.

* Corrected as pointed out by a poster below.

 

[Taxexemption]

The key aspect you're completely ignoring is that we are, as far as we know, the only species capable of long term planning and seeing the consequences of our actions. We're doing far more damage than any other species ever has. And we know we do it. When elephants flatten an area, they move on, the flattened area grows back. We don't move on, we flatten it and fill it with concrete. That's a key difference.

But to equate the "humans are a plague" view with veganism is a fallacy. I see plenty of omnivores shout out how population control is the answer to our woes.

Also, cats don't "play" with their prey for fun. They are making sure it's dead before they eat it. They'll prod and throw that mouse around until it stops moving.

It's basic survival. A cat's main weapon is it's face. One stray claw or beak and the cat could be blind. It has to be careful or it might die. It looks cruel, for sure, but you can't just project human thought systems to animals anf assume it's a one to one equation.

Filling areas with concrete is government and societal policy that can't be blamed on the individual. The vast majority of people are basically just passengers along for the ride in a society that is run by people who are not like us. I would like to basically de-industrialize a little and create communities designed around bicycles where cars of any type are banned. You can't blame "Humans" for something that only a small number of us have any real say in.

 

[QSD]

Cats will toy with wounded prey, both big and small cats from housecats to lions. It's just the way it is.

That is a cruelty perceived by the observer, for the cat it's nothing of the sort.

Then you have the fat housecat that is overfed and only wakes up to use the litter tray and eat.

That in turn is cruelty on the cat. However it could be old or have medical conditions or just be a lazy bollocks, I've seen each case.

You're right cats have personalities but is it nature or nature? It's both but the cat is still an animal with instincts.

It's actually pretty interesting philosophical question to what extent human and animal consciousness is similar. My general assumption is that we share our general motivational drives/passions with animals, and we evolved from them, so I assume for example that a cat's experience of fear is similar to mine, whatever else is true of the cat's consciousness. The same goes for aggressive/hunting type behaviour. The cat's drive to kill a mouse or bird is the same drive that humans feel when they hunt and/or kill. You seem to assume that a cat can't really feel cruelty?

 

[Kimahri]

The point of my argument was not necessarily to make you judge your cat's behaviour more harshly, rather it was to make you judge human behaviour less harshly.

How is it harsh? I'm saying we're damaging our home, and we're capable of seeing that happen as it happens. It's not harsh, it's an observation.

Look, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your point. My big worry is that if you overestimate our (humans) capabilities and (following from this) our responsibilities, you will see us as always failing or falling short. There's a parallel to the biblical notion of 'original sin'. It's certainly good to be self-critical, but I have seen this trait turn into a kind of (psychologically unhealthy) self loathing which only leads to cynicism, nihilism and (ultimately) inaction (when we in fact desperately need action!)

We're already failing to meet plenty of the goals that keeps getting set, so falling short is a given.

But you're building something that isn't there. I'm saying we're responsible for environmental destruction in a way animals are not. That's all.

oh come on, you can't even acknowledge there's a correlation?

I've heard the sentiment from plenty of people. None that I'm aware are vegan, several whom I know eat meat. So I don't see it, no. Not saying there aren't vegans who think like this, just that it's not a vegan thing.

You're right cats have personalities but is it nature or nature?

I guess it's nature?

It's both but the cat is still an animal with instincts.

So are we.

It's actually pretty interesting philosophical question to what extent human and animal consciousness is similar. My general assumption is that we share our general motivational drives/passions with animals, and we evolved from them, so I assume for example that a cat's experience of fear is similar to mine, whatever else is true of the cat's consciousness. The same goes for aggressive/hunting type behaviour. The cat's drive to kill a mouse or bird is the same drive that humans feel when they hunt and/or kill. You seem to assume that a cat can't really feel cruelty?

This I can agree with.

 

[QSD]

How is it harsh? I'm saying we're damaging our home, and we're capable of seeing that happen as it happens. It's not harsh, it's an observation.

We're already failing to meet plenty of the goals that keeps getting set, so falling short is a given.

But you're building something that isn't there. I'm saying we're responsible for environmental destruction in a way animals are not. That's all.

I obviously don't disagree we are destroying our environment. Look at it this way: we've just been doing what lots of other species do, which is to explore and inhabit new territories (in the broadest sense of the term), while treating the environment as a given (like IMHO all other animal species do). Now we have to do something that is totally counter to our natural instincts, which is to willfully downsize our whole operation to avoid an as-yet-still-relatively intangible future environmental catastrophe. I don't think there is any species in nature, be it beavers or termites or what have you, that can do that. Even if we fail completely, we will still have been the first species to have tried at all.

 

[Ionian]

How is it harsh? I'm saying we're damaging our home, and we're capable of seeing that happen as it happens. It's not harsh, it's an observation.

We're already failing to meet plenty of the goals that keeps getting set, so falling short is a given.

But you're building something that isn't there. I'm saying we're responsible for environmental destruction in a way animals are not. That's all.

I've heard the sentiment from plenty of people. None that I'm aware are vegan, several whom I know eat meat. So I don't see it, no. Not saying there aren't vegans who think like this, just that it's not a vegan thing.

I guess it's nature?

So are we.


This I can agree with.

Haha, ah balls, you know what I meant. Nature / Nuture.

What a fail.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

As for you guys talking humans destroying the environment, well it is what it is. None of us would even be speaking to each other on the internet if it wasnt for companies exploiting mining for all those fancy metals that go into every piece of electronics. And whatever exploitation is needed over history to make electronics and computers. Instead, we'd all be pen pals doing snail mail correspondence where this thread takes 5 years and $20 of stamps for people to reply to everyone.

On the other hand, if someone wants to leave as small a human footprint as possible, you'd work a meager job getting by and living in a forest cabin living off the land. Not too many people are going to do that. Just about everyone wants some money to live it up, eat what they want and buy what they want. Not too many people out there want to live like Mother Teresa among the poor who have nothing (but also contribute virtually zero to hurting the environment).

As humans crushing the Earth? Maybe. Maybe not. The more people crush it, the better the stuff we get. The less we do stuff to Earth, the more we'd trend back 200 years ago to living like pilgrims lighting candlesticks for light and your source of water is getting buckets of water from the nearest river. Your choice. Some poor people still do that.

Overcrowding only seems so because countries and cities build infrastructure and homes in mostly dense areas. Hover over your city in Google maps and zoom out and more and more. Even if you live in a giant metro hub, it'll get to a point when you zoom out, you'll see... "holy shit, there's tons of room! It'll probably take 500 years of reproduction to fill those gaps!"

Here's Toronto. Looks pretty dense right? Most homes built in the area lately trend to 40 floor condos, so over the past 10-20 years it's got really crowded with gridlock. Thankfully, covid relieved some of that as many people work from home.

Now zoom out 2-3 notches. Not so deathly overcrowded after all. Zoom out to the Ontario province level of you really want to see dead space.

Toronto · Toronto, ON, Canada

Toronto, ON, Canada

www.google.ca

 

[Peggies]

No. Eggs are animal flesh. It's an abuse of language to call eggs a vegetarian dish.

See, that's why I'm trying to say "I'm not vegetarian. I just don't eat meat". Because at some point there's always some smart cookie who's like "Hahaaaa, got you! There's chicken soup cube in it!"

Personally I love side dishes. I could eat potatoe salad with rice and be truely happy about it. I actually prefer having sides to people preparing something especially for me (and staring at me while I'm eating).

 

[Ionian]

See, that's why I'm trying to say "I'm not vegetarian. I just don't eat meat". Because at some point there's always some smart cookie who's like "Hahaaaa, got you! There's chicken soup cube in it!"

Personally I love side dishes. I could eat potatoe salad with rice and be truely happy about it. I actually prefer having sides to people preparing something especially for me (and staring at me while I'm eating).

Funnily enough some Sundays my Father would get takeaway rather than cook, from the local chipper. My sister who decided to become vegetarian due to her love of animals always got the 'Spice Burger'.

My father said it was just spices, it's all the off cuts, instentines and offal deep-fried and battered so you can't tell. You seriously can only taste the spice.

When she eventually found out she was naturally livid. We laughed at the time but looking back It was a shockingly cruel thing to do. Being honest it was better she was never told at all.