Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Who are the pests?

Re: Who are the pests?
January 07, 2014, 08:09:25 AM
Caring counts for nothing. It's a get it/don't get it thing.
Or perhaps a be it/don't be it thing.

The big thing I have in common with you swingin' dicks is that I know people are mostly shits.
The thing I don't have in common is that it no longer bothers me like it used to.
Non-polarized, non-partisan.
It's a lifesaver.
Squawk!

Re: Who are the pests?
January 07, 2014, 01:51:58 PM
The big thing I have in common with you swingin' dicks is that I know people are mostly shits.

No society collapses without its citizens becoming mostly shits, or at the very least selfish and self-obsessed.

In my view, deer are like every other creature: there's a carrying capacity per acre.

As Wild noted, and others followed up on, humans are above their own carrying capacity.

Thus we've displaced others species which then concentrate in the green belts at unhealthy numbers which will denude the landscape, requiring the intervention of Rednecks who will shoot them and make tasty sausage.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 07, 2014, 03:44:32 PM
If I presented a cow the choice between grass and dead last, it's not choosing you.

Largely we don't eat carnivores. If ruminants could metabolize human meat I'm sure they would eat us, given necessity and opportunity.

I admire vegans/veganism to a point. I know one that is an exceptional person. For the others, maybe it was just hard to get past how overwhelmingly bitter they were. As with most things, I suspect a moderate approach is healthiest, though it's making less of a statement. Humans have been eating animals for a long time - what's now lost with mass-production (especially, but not exclusively with meat) is any realistic sense of our relationship to our food. That's fucking crazy, because it's one of those things we biologically NEED along with sleep, air, and potable water.

Calories in, calories out. Coffee for productivity, alcohol for that nagging sense incompleteness. Psychedelics and other drugs make you weak. Don't like all of this? Clearly you have a shit work ethic.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 07, 2014, 05:20:55 PM
Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it?
The relationship between man and nature.
How can it be that man still doesn't understand he is nature, and had better bloody well start behaving appropriately.

See my post about Hubris. A few above yours. Vegans and society at large still view man and nature as separate entities.

Wild,

I remembered what I wanted to ask you last night. is hunting the only form of honor regarding the consuming of am animal? I feel like livestock raised on one's own property, given proper care and diet, and slaughtered humanely is honorable. One builds a direct relationship with the creatures as one does a garden and an intimate understanding of the cycles of life.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 07, 2014, 05:25:48 PM
Caring counts for nothing. It's a get it/don't get it thing.
Or perhaps a be it/don't be it thing.

The big thing I have in common with you swingin' dicks is that I know people are mostly shits.
The thing I don't have in common is that it no longer bothers me like it used to.
Non-polarized, non-partisan.
It's a lifesaver.

Divine indifference, especially in respects to your own passions, is a healthy and well adapted attitude.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 12:50:29 AM
Hubris goes both ways. It's easy to point it out when humans declare they are above nature - which by the way is philosophically unique to our civilization - it's painful to see that hubris go unnoticed when people claim that humans should know better (a statement that places humans above animals, only different in context). Life is in a constant push pull with itself due to a finite amount of space and resources. Organisms adapt to exploit what niche they are able to find. Expecting humanity to act against this cardinal mechanism, turning to misanthropy when Man falls to live up to YOUR image of him is asinine.

Most people probably have no clue how industry treats what ends up on their table and are far to busy handling concerns greater than how the food got on the table. Spreading the information to them is good, but don't insult them like they never heard Jesus.
I don't see how the two positions are inconsistent: 1. We are the only species able to manipulate nature as we please, which is a result of living in a civilisation. 2. We therefore have ethical responsibilities that are a result of living in a civilisation (ie. we "should know better"). You stated both as if they are direct contradictions.

I realise that my misanthropy is counterproductive and I therefore try to suppress it when interacting in person. However, your wording of "Man falls to live up to YOUR image of him", and the overall point you are trying to make with the emphasis, is based on a populist fallacy, ie. making *me* the problem only seems logical because I'm currently in the minority. If we choose a violent event that had a majority against it (at least in the US where most of you are from) such as 9/11, it would have been absurd to criticise the armchair viewers who said "them terrists dun wrong", as it would have been clear that the issue was not the failure of the terrorists to live up to THEIR image of Man, but rather the impact the event had on [the family of] the victims. It's easy to focus on who the vegans are and their personalities (ad hominem fallacy) but the real subject of discussion is about the victims we want to protect. Of course the connotations of the word "victim" are only real if one believes in the morality that comes with civilisation. This is where Wild's position is stronger than mine; if civilisation and morality crumble, then (according to my world view, not Wild's) so does veganism.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 12:56:50 AM
In my view, deer are like every other creature: there's a carrying capacity per acre.

As Wild noted, and others followed up on, humans are above their own carrying capacity.

Thus we've displaced others species which then concentrate in the green belts at unhealthy numbers which will denude the landscape, requiring the intervention of Rednecks who will shoot them and make tasty sausage.
Based only on the logic you have presented, it is the humans who need to be shot, not the deer. I would also be careful not to take what the Rednecks say about overpopulation as gospel. If they present a "solution" to the overpopulation, which also by complete coincidence happens to allow them a constant and reliable income stream, I would be questioning their motives. Most of us would say pretty much anything to get an income. Did you ever lie in a job interview?

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 01:00:50 AM
Largely we don't eat carnivores. If ruminants could metabolize human meat I'm sure they would eat us, given necessity and opportunity.
The key word being necessity. But also I'm sure that if women actually had penises and men had vaginas, but women were also physically much stronger than men and with twice the libido, the women would rape us given the chance! So, we'd better rape them while we can just to keep them in check. We're all equal, afterall!

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 01:09:16 AM
Wild,

I remembered what I wanted to ask you last night. is hunting the only form of honor regarding the consuming of am animal? I feel like livestock raised on one's own property, given proper care and diet, and slaughtered humanely is honorable. One builds a direct relationship with the creatures as one does a garden and an intimate understanding of the cycles of life.
This wasn't directed at me, so I apologise in advance if I get it wrong, but I hardly see how hunting is in any way honorable, anymore than hitting a guy with a baseball bat while he's sleeping. Maybe if you use those ferocious claws and teeth of yours to actually sever the jugular vein of a live deer, after you've chased him/her there might be some honour. I might even congratulate you.

As for the livestock slaughter being honorable, replace the word "livestock" with "children" and the answer should be obvious, since as far as we know both have a will to live borne from a deep survival instinct. The livestock never had a sporting chance to begin with, as they were born in captivity before they could defend themselves in any way. Then the farmer you refer to builds trust over time until betraying it right at the end. All cowardice is the same.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 01:24:33 AM
Largely we don't eat carnivores. If ruminants could metabolize human meat I'm sure they would eat us, given necessity and opportunity.
The key word being necessity. But also I'm sure that if women actually had penises and men had vaginas, but women were also physically much stronger than men and with twice the libido, the women would rape us given the chance! So, we'd better rape them while we can just to keep them in check. We're all equal, afterall!

Not sure if it's a key word there. What makes you think a wolf wouldn't pick at, or wholly devour your dead/ailing body if it was hungry?

Anyway, some of the logistics of food sourcing/production etc. re: vegetarian food alternatives is logical, and I don't have much of an issue with it. Given social stability and consistent technological process, we'll probably "grow" all our burgers. Slaughtering domesticated animals will be relegated to specialty cuisines (as it already has, to a certain extent - "grass-fed", etc.).

It's doubtful that many people would argue against vegan ethics, unless they were simply a contrarian, or if they were genuinely lacking in empathy. At this point, it is determined by historical precedent, and system. The changes that would need to occur - moving at the speed demanded by most vegans - would very likely cause greater problems than the ones you rail against, and ultimately be counter-productive. See similar faulty observations/propositions in the "holocaust under 120s" argument.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 02:21:49 AM
I don't see how the two positions are inconsistent: 1. We are the only species able to manipulate nature as we please, which is a result of living in a civilisation. 2. We therefore have ethical responsibilities that are a result of living in a civilisation (ie. we "should know better"). You stated both as if they are direct contradictions.

1. Let's get our terms straight. Humanity is a part of nature, as is well, everything else. Humanity is able to "modify" the environment, but so can just about every other form of life. It's simply a matter of scale & intent.

2. The contradiction is in asserting that humans should know better while simultaneously claiming that they no more special than any other form of life. You are on one hand, placing them above all other things (ethics) while the other, asserting that they aren't above all other life. You've done it again, by the way, through your assertion that humanity is the only species who are capable of modifying nature. That is a bold claim.

I realise that my misanthropy is counterproductive and I therefore try to suppress it when interacting in person. However, your wording of "Man falls to live up to YOUR image of him", and the overall point you are trying to make with the emphasis, is based on a populist fallacy, ie. making *me* the problem only seems logical because I'm currently in the minority. If we choose a violent event that had a majority against it (at least in the US where most of you are from) such as 9/11, it would have been absurd to criticise the armchair viewers who said "them terrists dun wrong", as it would have been clear that the issue was not the failure of the terrorists to live up to THEIR image of Man, but rather the impact the event had on [the family of] the victims. It's easy to focus on who the vegans are and their personalities (ad hominem fallacy) but the real subject of discussion is about the victims we want to protect. Of course the connotations of the word "victim" are only real if one believes in the morality that comes with civilisation. This is where Wild's position is stronger than mine; if civilisation and morality crumble, then (according to my world view, not Wild's) so does veganism.

I'm not making you into a problem. This started with a simple observation: Why are most vegans persistently angry? You responded to my observation and thus we proceed from there. I'm not going to bother with the rest of that.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 02:28:17 AM
Wild,

I remembered what I wanted to ask you last night. is hunting the only form of honor regarding the consuming of am animal? I feel like livestock raised on one's own property, given proper care and diet, and slaughtered humanely is honorable. One builds a direct relationship with the creatures as one does a garden and an intimate understanding of the cycles of life.
This wasn't directed at me, so I apologise in advance if I get it wrong, but I hardly see how hunting is in any way honorable, anymore than hitting a guy with a baseball bat while he's sleeping. Maybe if you use those ferocious claws and teeth of yours to actually sever the jugular vein of a live deer, after you've chased him/her there might be some honour. I might even congratulate you.

As for the livestock slaughter being honorable, replace the word "livestock" with "children" and the answer should be obvious, since as far as we know both have a will to live borne from a deep survival instinct. The livestock never had a sporting chance to begin with, as they were born in captivity before they could defend themselves in any way. Then the farmer you refer to builds trust over time until betraying it right at the end. All cowardice is the same.

I'm confused. Why are you limiting the choices I may make from the toolkit I have before me? What is the logic behind limiting an honorable kill to tooth and claw? Why not intellect? Why not use these these wonderful appendages to fashion myself a spear? It seems like you are looking for a "fair fight" in which case I would suggest you spend some time in the wilderness and see if other life approaches you "fairly."

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:26:39 AM
Haha :)
You young bucks got all the answers.
Dat wuz good.
Squawk!

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:29:21 AM
It's doubtful that many people would argue against vegan ethics, unless they were simply a contrarian, or if they were genuinely lacking in empathy. At this point, it is determined by historical precedent, and system. The changes that would need to occur - moving at the speed demanded by most vegans - would very likely cause greater problems than the ones you rail against, and ultimately be counter-productive. See similar faulty observations/propositions in the "holocaust under 120s" argument.
I'm surprised at how many people do argue against vegan ethics. They will make any excuse to keep their heads stuck in the sand and to not have to think critically about their own involvement in animal abuse. I've been impressed with people's willingness to engage the topic in this forum though. As for the speed of change argument, I can see that if the whole world turned vegan tomorrow, chaos would probably ensue, but the reality is that change is occurring far too slowly. The percentage of vegans in the world has increased encouragingly during the past ten years or so, but the last thing I'm scared of is that the world will turn vegan too quickly.

1. Let's get our terms straight. Humanity is a part of nature, as is well, everything else. Humanity is able to "modify" the environment, but so can just about every other form of life. It's simply a matter of scale & intent.

2. The contradiction is in asserting that humans should know better while simultaneously claiming that they no more special than any other form of life. You are on one hand, placing them above all other things (ethics) while the other, asserting that they aren't above all other life. You've done it again, by the way, through your assertion that humanity is the only species who are capable of modifying nature. That is a bold claim.
1. We don't just modify the environment. We intentionally manipulate the overall systems in which nature functions. Civilisation has a fine level of control over nature, suggesting to me that we have separated ourselves from nature, while retaining many of the instincts we evolved from having been a part of nature. No other species fits this description. I guess the problem with such an argument is that we are possibly both defining nature differently. If your definition requires that nature is a system that contains civilised society, then there is no arguing with you as I would be wrong by definition.

2. I think you've missed the point a little bit while saying that I assert that humans "aren't above all other life", as I actually reject the idea of inherent value in sentient life (as I think most people here do). I personally value my family members ahead of anyone else, as well as having other biases, but a social justice viewpoint is separate from this (whether that viewpoint is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-speciesist etc.) in that what matters is the individual's capacity to value his or her own life. I don't have to like or value someone in order to want basic justice for them. I may have a personal dislike of Mexicans, and assign less value to them because of bias, but I will always stand against racist actions and in favour of social justice because I know that the evidence suggests Mexicans have an equal capacity to value their own lives (yeah...I'm a pinko liberal...sorry).

I'm not making you into a problem. This started with a simple observation: Why are most vegans persistently angry? You responded to my observation and thus we proceed from there. I'm not going to bother with the rest of that.
My apologies for that.

I'm confused. Why are you limiting the choices I may make from the toolkit I have before me? What is the logic behind limiting an honorable kill to tooth and claw? Why not intellect? Why not use these these wonderful appendages to fashion myself a spear? It seems like you are looking for a "fair fight" in which case I would suggest you spend some time in the wilderness and see if other life approaches you "fairly."
So are you saying that there IS honour in hitting a man with a baseball bat while he is asleep?

Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether a kill is honorable, but I was simply answering a question of whether hunting/killing could be considered honorable. I would maintain that an honorable fight means a fair fight, but this is irrelevant coming from me as I would advocate that any violence against the innocent shouldn't happen in civilised society.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:42:00 AM
Lol :) That's hilarious:
"I would advocate that any violence against the innocent shouldn't happen in civilised society."
Maybe you don't understand the nature of violence. It isn't something that is allowed or not allowed. It isn't reasoned out into should/shouldn't. It can only be stopped by superior violence, or by the ability to move faster than it.
Yours is such a totally leftist view.

Violence is a fact of life. Civilization has nothing to do with it, apart from decreasing its frequency somewhat, until the violence reasserts itself and finishes off the civilization that tried to outlaw it.


Squawk!