Agreed however I believe the spiritual innocence is lost when instead of tilling the soil and reaping the benefits of our labour or taking care of the animals for months or years and then eating them we just work for a telemarketing company and then walk into a store and buy the flesh or secretions of a creature we have no connection to.
-
The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines Bereavement Mindfulness Suicide Support Anger Management -
TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android
Mental Health Why bother playing the game of life when you can''t win?
- Thread starter Salvinorin A
- Start date
- Status
Agreed however I believe the spiritual innocence is lost when instead of tilling the soil and reaping the benefits of our labour or taking care of the animals for months or years and then eating them we just work for a telemarketing company and then walk into a store and buy the flesh or secretions of a creature we have no connection to.
Please don't think of it as a game. Better to view 'life' as just something that is. No real course, just constant experience, and through that, knowledge.
bloodshed344
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,576
dilated_pupils
Bluelighter
I have no problem with leaving all animal life alone and letting it expand into the wild blue yonder but the point is I could swear this moment to stop eating meat and there will still be meat that is wasted. The way I understand it, things need to happen progressively & swift, rather than having an allowance of time. I don't believe in wasting energy and if I honestly swore off of a certain food it would be wasted and would do more good being consumed and becoming a byproduct than nothing at all except allowing it to be forgotten.
I'm still in the process of some life changing things here myself some excuse my lack of sentiment here on the issues I brought up. The only way for me to build my feelings and relationships towards such thoughts is by sharing and creating them from the ground up. Thank you for your response though, it definitely made me think out of the box a bit.
-dp
Libby
Bluelighter
No, and I am glad for that as it is against my morals. (unless you mean grain farming or such which I assume you do not).
I cannot accept that, as animal products are unnecessary. And they never gave their consent, that thery would be ok with this as you have done (mind you I would still consider it immoral to kill and eat you for my sustinance regardless of your consenting to this).
If I were starving in a desert and my sustenance depended upon using another sentient being for food purposes, I could accept that.
But I do not live in this situation, I live in a developed nation with an over abundance of food, where every health organisation agrees that well planned balanced vegan diets provide adequate nutrition for all stages of life from infancy to old age and including pregnancy. So what right have I, to steal from or murder another sentient being for sustenance? None, which is why I now do my best to live a completely Vegan lifestyle. I don't consider this to be cynical. As far as I' concerned the idea that not all humans treat their "live stock" read, stock, as in property, that is live like pieces of shit to be beside the point. I maintain that they are not their property. That every sentient being, has the right not to be treated as the property of another.
Last edited:
I just made a pasta sauce, where i cut open the sausage casing and browned the sausage in olive oil, with garlic and onion, and it was amazing. I'm hypocritical in saying this, but I always thought that the intelligence of pigs was under-utilized in terms of propaganda for treating pigs(and other sentient beings well).
These guys are more intelligent than dogs. (an animal our culture as a whole feels emotional empathy for while keeping as subordinate pets).
The food industry has done a great job of suppressing that information.
missmeyet?
Bluelighter
Agreed 100%. Such is the way of the earth regardless of what humans do. All animals eat/get eaten. It is a natural occurence.
Libby
Bluelighter
I don't actually think how intelligent they are is relevant either.
I mean, you wouldn't use a mentally handicapped person as a food source.
I believe the only requirement for the right not to be used as a resource is sentience, and pigs are sentient, whether they are as intelligent as us or as dogs doesn't impact at all one way or the other whether they have thoughts/feelings/interests. Because of their sentience they do not deserve the status of resource humans apply to them.
Of course say in impoverished nations where food is scarce and one relies on the milk of their goat to keep their family alive, and they inflict no more suffering than is necessary for this ends, I would not propose that they are acting immorally, they are doing what they need to survive. And the other animals will use eachother as food when it is necessary also, this is the reality of survival. I do acknowledge however, that I do not NEED to exploit any thinking/feeling/intrest holding being, I am very lucky to not be living in a famine. It took me until I was about 25 years old to really realise that, but now that I do, I have a responsibility to act in accordance with that realisation. Not to be speciesist, not to believe that my desire for what to me is only a taste outweighs what is for them life itself. Especially if i want to claim the right that I be treated fair and with respect, that I have a right to freedom, then I cannot rationally deny that to others only because they taste good. Plenty of plant foods taste good.
And while we're on the subject of plants, don't forget that eating animal products is not something one does instead of consuming plants. If you raise animals for food, you need to feed grain to those animals. Over 80% of the worlds grain harvest are fed to animals going to slaughter, rather than to hungry people. These are animals who only exist because we bring them into existence to be our resources, born into slavery. If you want to destroy less plants, it makes sense to go vegan and oppose animal agriculture.
Of course it is not possible to abstain from animal products and from plant foods, one cannot exist on air and water alone for very long. If we could, then I may be more inclined to agree that both animal (including human) and plant life should not be dessimated and ought both to hold moral significance.
I mean, you wouldn't use a mentally handicapped person as a food source.
I believe the only requirement for the right not to be used as a resource is sentience, and pigs are sentient, whether they are as intelligent as us or as dogs doesn't impact at all one way or the other whether they have thoughts/feelings/interests. Because of their sentience they do not deserve the status of resource humans apply to them.
Of course say in impoverished nations where food is scarce and one relies on the milk of their goat to keep their family alive, and they inflict no more suffering than is necessary for this ends, I would not propose that they are acting immorally, they are doing what they need to survive. And the other animals will use eachother as food when it is necessary also, this is the reality of survival. I do acknowledge however, that I do not NEED to exploit any thinking/feeling/intrest holding being, I am very lucky to not be living in a famine. It took me until I was about 25 years old to really realise that, but now that I do, I have a responsibility to act in accordance with that realisation. Not to be speciesist, not to believe that my desire for what to me is only a taste outweighs what is for them life itself. Especially if i want to claim the right that I be treated fair and with respect, that I have a right to freedom, then I cannot rationally deny that to others only because they taste good. Plenty of plant foods taste good.
And while we're on the subject of plants, don't forget that eating animal products is not something one does instead of consuming plants. If you raise animals for food, you need to feed grain to those animals. Over 80% of the worlds grain harvest are fed to animals going to slaughter, rather than to hungry people. These are animals who only exist because we bring them into existence to be our resources, born into slavery. If you want to destroy less plants, it makes sense to go vegan and oppose animal agriculture.
Of course it is not possible to abstain from animal products and from plant foods, one cannot exist on air and water alone for very long. If we could, then I may be more inclined to agree that both animal (including human) and plant life should not be dessimated and ought both to hold moral significance.
Last edited:
summerfriend
Greenlighter
all these distractions from the real threat my friends..
Libby
Bluelighter
As much as the 1% are a threat to us 99%,
so are we a threat to sentient beings and the environment.
Our integrity is important if we are to oppose corruption.
But yes perhaps we could get off this animal rights tangent and back to the original posts outlined problems.
I havn't really more to add on that,
Except that I like this song. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeE3-rOG7i4
over to the rest of you.
so are we a threat to sentient beings and the environment.
Our integrity is important if we are to oppose corruption.
But yes perhaps we could get off this animal rights tangent and back to the original posts outlined problems.
I havn't really more to add on that,
Except that I like this song. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeE3-rOG7i4
over to the rest of you.
^What, the imminent resurrection of Richard Nixon? (it was the best I could think of)
Libby,
First of all: would you lick my dick (not a trick question, not meant to be demeaning)?
Second: Is your argument, consolidated, that animals deserve the rights of humans? And that they don't consent to be eaten, but are?
Third: And that all of this basically predicates on the ability to feel, not intelligence?
Libby,
First of all: would you lick my dick (not a trick question, not meant to be demeaning)?
Second: Is your argument, consolidated, that animals deserve the rights of humans? And that they don't consent to be eaten, but are?
Third: And that all of this basically predicates on the ability to feel, not intelligence?
Libby
Bluelighter
I don't know if I find you attractive or not, having never met you, so lets say maybe to licking your dick.
I believe that like be treated as like.
I do not believe that every animal has the same rights as humans.
The other animals have no interest in the right to education and freedom of information for example.
And it doesn't make sense to take animals to court and prison over crimes like murder for example as a trial would not be meaningful to the familys of non-human animal victims.
Where we are like however, which is at the very least in sentience (perceptual consiousness, subjective awareness, the ability to suffer, to have self interests, and survival instincts) should be treated as like.
with the basic right not to be subjected to unnessesary enslavement, and theft of body. the basic right not to be treated as property when one is infact alive and experiencing their lives. This right should belong to all sentient beings not only humans.
Why do people think intelligence should be the deciding factor on who has a right and who doesn't? dogs and pigs are more intelligent than a human baby and we do not believe it morally acceptable to use a human baby as a food resource or livestock. Why? because thjey are sentient and have an interest in continueing their life and not being tortured. If it were really about intelligence we'd think itr was ok to exploit babies and the mentally retarded, but we don't.
I agree with proffessor gary l franciones theory of animal rights, the abbolitionist approach.
He is more eloquent with words than I,
here's a pamphlet.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet.pdf
I believe that like be treated as like.
I do not believe that every animal has the same rights as humans.
The other animals have no interest in the right to education and freedom of information for example.
And it doesn't make sense to take animals to court and prison over crimes like murder for example as a trial would not be meaningful to the familys of non-human animal victims.
Where we are like however, which is at the very least in sentience (perceptual consiousness, subjective awareness, the ability to suffer, to have self interests, and survival instincts) should be treated as like.
with the basic right not to be subjected to unnessesary enslavement, and theft of body. the basic right not to be treated as property when one is infact alive and experiencing their lives. This right should belong to all sentient beings not only humans.
Why do people think intelligence should be the deciding factor on who has a right and who doesn't? dogs and pigs are more intelligent than a human baby and we do not believe it morally acceptable to use a human baby as a food resource or livestock. Why? because thjey are sentient and have an interest in continueing their life and not being tortured. If it were really about intelligence we'd think itr was ok to exploit babies and the mentally retarded, but we don't.
I agree with proffessor gary l franciones theory of animal rights, the abbolitionist approach.
He is more eloquent with words than I,
here's a pamphlet.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet.pdf
Last edited:
It was mostly a joke, I just saw a post of your stating that you wanted to lick someone's dick
Sentient: the ability to feel.
The sad fact is that you have this complex, ethical philosophy which implodes upon itself: self interests/survival instincts conflict with each other. It is necessary to enslave others.
Let me tackle this from another angle: http://www.foodmag.com.au/news/food-of-the-future-mass-produced-chickens-with--1-
Problem solved?
Sentient: the ability to feel.
The sad fact is that you have this complex, ethical philosophy which implodes upon itself: self interests/survival instincts conflict with each other. It is necessary to enslave others.
Let me tackle this from another angle: http://www.foodmag.com.au/news/food-of-the-future-mass-produced-chickens-with--1-
Problem solved?
Libby
Bluelighter
It is not necessary, as I have explained, to enslave others.
A world based on co-operation rather than exploitation would be much more efficient.
This is an interesting book on the issue, by Bob Torres "making a killing - the political economy of animal rights"
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Killing-Political-Economy-Animal/dp/1904859674
And the principal of equal consideration isn't complex, it is the basis of all moral thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests
A world based on co-operation rather than exploitation would be much more efficient.
This is an interesting book on the issue, by Bob Torres "making a killing - the political economy of animal rights"
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Killing-Political-Economy-Animal/dp/1904859674
And the principal of equal consideration isn't complex, it is the basis of all moral thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests
Last edited:
This conversation is taking two tracts, or, rather, I have two points.
I would like to focus on one linear path of logic:
How can you enslave something which can't feel?
Things that are sentient, or that can feel, deserve equal rights. That's your whole point. If they can't, there's no problemo.
Co-operation and exploitation co-exist. It goes against the very basic laws of nature not to co-operate entirely, but this does not even matter, because something which can't feel, keep in mind that this is according to science (in terms of what is able to feel), risks no detriment in it being used.
I understand that this is complicated, but please keep in mind that what I am asking for is your opinion, which you should be able to defend yourself.
I would like to focus on one linear path of logic:
How can you enslave something which can't feel?
Things that are sentient, or that can feel, deserve equal rights. That's your whole point. If they can't, there's no problemo.
Co-operation and exploitation co-exist. It goes against the very basic laws of nature not to co-operate entirely, but this does not even matter, because something which can't feel, keep in mind that this is according to science (in terms of what is able to feel), risks no detriment in it being used.
I understand that this is complicated, but please keep in mind that what I am asking for is your opinion, which you should be able to defend yourself.
Libby
Bluelighter
They deserve equal consideration.
Where we have like interests, we should have like rights.
We are like in sentience and therefore have the like interest not to be treated as a "thing" or as "property".
It doesn't mean equal rights in the sence that every human right ought also be applied to the other animals,
as many of these rights are based on interests which we do not share with the other animals.
Human slavery does go on in the world still, but it is at least now accepted by everyone to be immoral and ought to be oppossed.
And it is established that the other animals ARE sentient.
It is also established that plant foods can provide complete nutrition to humans who have access to the variety of plant foods which we do (by we of course I am not uincluding those living in starving nations, unfortunastely. but the evolution of mankind to a vegan diet would free up a lot of resources, there is no need for any nation to continue to famine indefinately, capitalism places these nations at the bottom of a heirarchy, producing nations like the ivory coast are empoverished because western CEOs at huge corporations like nestle are billionaires. These CEOs are not working exponentially harder than those toiling the fields of africa). Capitalism isn't fair, it treats the sentient as commodity, it divides us into classes, creates inequality and spurs discrimination. It creates inefficient markets, and there are alternatives.
Where we have like interests, we should have like rights.
We are like in sentience and therefore have the like interest not to be treated as a "thing" or as "property".
It doesn't mean equal rights in the sence that every human right ought also be applied to the other animals,
as many of these rights are based on interests which we do not share with the other animals.
Human slavery does go on in the world still, but it is at least now accepted by everyone to be immoral and ought to be oppossed.
And it is established that the other animals ARE sentient.
It is also established that plant foods can provide complete nutrition to humans who have access to the variety of plant foods which we do (by we of course I am not uincluding those living in starving nations, unfortunastely. but the evolution of mankind to a vegan diet would free up a lot of resources, there is no need for any nation to continue to famine indefinately, capitalism places these nations at the bottom of a heirarchy, producing nations like the ivory coast are empoverished because western CEOs at huge corporations like nestle are billionaires. These CEOs are not working exponentially harder than those toiling the fields of africa). Capitalism isn't fair, it treats the sentient as commodity, it divides us into classes, creates inequality and spurs discrimination. It creates inefficient markets, and there are alternatives.
Last edited:
Then so do plants, but since both plants and animals without brains aren't sentient, its equally ethical to eat either according to you.
In other words, guilt free. You are doing nothing wrong.
In other words, guilt free. You are doing nothing wrong.
Libby
Bluelighter
Animals without brains? lul wut.
the only animals without brains I can think of are like clams.. these are not the top exploited animals at human hands. I am not sure if clams are sentient, probably not, so I agree you'd be doing nothing really wrong if they arent sentient. I choose not to exploit clams because a. it isn't necessary, b. eeewww yukk *bleh*
It sounds like you may have the terms sentient and sapient mixed up.
The animals we routinely exploit are sentient, regardless of their sapience or their level of intelligence.
If you're concerned about the possibility of plant sentience, then your goal would have to be to consume the least amount of plants required and thereby reduce net sufferring. Since raising animals for food involves large amounts of plant matter be fed to said animals, before eating them, veganism equates to a fraction of the amount of plant consumption and would be the rational conclusion. Not to mention the decrease in petrol, green house emitions, forrest being cleared for grazing pasture and grain crops, makes a lot of sense for the environment if your a hippy concerned about love for the earth itself or whatever, etc, etc.
personally I don't believe whatever sentience plants may hold to be quantitativly similar to that of animals. If I shove a hot poker into a pig she recoils and screams in pain. If I shove a hot poker into a brocolli...nothing.
the only animals without brains I can think of are like clams.. these are not the top exploited animals at human hands. I am not sure if clams are sentient, probably not, so I agree you'd be doing nothing really wrong if they arent sentient. I choose not to exploit clams because a. it isn't necessary, b. eeewww yukk *bleh*
It sounds like you may have the terms sentient and sapient mixed up.
The animals we routinely exploit are sentient, regardless of their sapience or their level of intelligence.
If you're concerned about the possibility of plant sentience, then your goal would have to be to consume the least amount of plants required and thereby reduce net sufferring. Since raising animals for food involves large amounts of plant matter be fed to said animals, before eating them, veganism equates to a fraction of the amount of plant consumption and would be the rational conclusion. Not to mention the decrease in petrol, green house emitions, forrest being cleared for grazing pasture and grain crops, makes a lot of sense for the environment if your a hippy concerned about love for the earth itself or whatever, etc, etc.
personally I don't believe whatever sentience plants may hold to be quantitativly similar to that of animals. If I shove a hot poker into a pig she recoils and screams in pain. If I shove a hot poker into a brocolli...nothing.
Last edited:
No...they're at least thinking of manufacturing chickens without brains
Like I said: problem solved
Like I said: problem solved
- Status