Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Vigilance

1 ... 16 [17] 18 ... 26
241
Metal / Re: What bands are you listening to today?
« on: January 11, 2014, 07:49:09 PM »
Giving Obliteration - Black Death Horizon a shot. Initial impressions: High energy, cool drum performance, but unbalanced and awkward composition. The band seems to be unaware that the atmosphere parts aren't working as well as they think when juxtaposed next to the "fun" Celtic Frost sections, which sounds more like Darkthrone doing Celtic Frost. On occasion I forget I'm not listening to Aura Noir. C-

Editupdate:

The more I listen the more I hate it, there's a good heavy metal band in here but they won't admit it to themselves.

242
Interzone / Re: Tolkien
« on: January 09, 2014, 03:34:20 PM »
You've got it. LOTR is set in the context of modern Western civilization in decline. The sad thing is, if people pick up anything "deeper" it's a misinterpreted shire being some hippy village, you know, that old thing.

243
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 09:28:02 PM »
Quote
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 still retains the notion that animals are products to be manipulated for human gain.

Hunting is manipulation for human gain, yes, but it does not reduce animals to products - they are free to live until the hunter attempts to capture one. Then a great struggle for life ensues, leaving the weak behind and allowing the stronger, faster to survive.

The reason I object to hunting from humans is due to many reasons, most of which are wrapped in layers of misanthropy.

Thanks for the answer. I understand where you're coming from.

244
Interzone / Re: Tolkien
« on: January 08, 2014, 06:13:36 PM »
I feel like everything that is inspired by Tolkien is strictly about the fantasy and not what he communicated through it and totally misses the point. SK you get all these superficialities repeated without the underlying purpose that gives them any significance. whatever. I'm about as sick of orcs and elves as I am with zombies, nuclear holocausts and vampires since people seem wholly unable to draw deeper significance out of these creations.

/bitteroldfuck

245
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 06:07:39 PM »
You're right, I think I'll leave that last post as a cap on the conversation. All the ground that can be covered has been covered and it's essentially up to Forbinator to come to terms with the information or reject it all, on his own. Arriving at either conclusion would close off this debate so that is that.

246
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 05:33:59 PM »
To be honest a large chunk of the reason I'm engaging with this guy is to combat the growing consensus that humans are irredeemable omnicidal megalomaniacs. Which isn't to say that humans don't exhibit such things, but there is a general trend inching towards placing human life in that extreme and all non human life on the other without regard for capacity towards either extreme inherent in nature and in life.

247
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 03:29:21 PM »
Tbh, the lengthy debates like these make for my least favourite threads on the site.

Take a step back!

Why? Most other threads are: dead ends, one or more few individuals posting articles under a topic, circle jerks repeating mantra from senior posters.

248
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 03:26:22 PM »
1 No I will not agree that humans are the only species who have manipulative control over the ecosystem. I will find it agreeable if you accept that differences of modification between all flora and fauna, this includes humans, are differences in scale are not differences in kind. In order to discuss ethics, we'd have to sit down at the beginning and get our metaphysics in order.

2. I don't believe the act of taking a human life is morally impermissible. There are no evil actions only evil minds.

3. OK. your position is that the only honorable way to hunt is through a fair fight. Since the topic is on consumption. let's rule out hunting for sport. Let's use a real world example:

Tigers evolved a set of adaptions that aide them in the hunt. The Tiger, like most form of feline, silently stalks its prey until the opportune moment arises whereupon it leaps from cover and delivers death's knell to the unsuspecting victim. The prey often doesn't see it coming, not unlike a hunter who might use an arrow or bullet to take down his meal. Is the Tiger a dishonorable creature?

249
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 08, 2014, 04:33:23 AM »

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.

You are wrong in your definition. Everything humanity is and does is part and parcel of nature. Unless you can draw a line that isn't completely arbitrary, there is no argument.


Quote
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).

Understood. Let's just leave it at that since it's ultimately a question of radically different values.


So are you saying that there IS honour in hitting a man with a baseball bat while he is asleep?

Don't dodge. I asked why you wanted to limit the tool kit we have before us.

Personally, in the context of hunting, I'm not looking for honour, I'm looking for a meal.

Quote
but this is irrelevant coming from me

You'll get no argument from me ;)

250
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: 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."

251
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: 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.

252
Metal / Re: Sacramentum - Far Away From the Sun
« on: January 07, 2014, 06:32:17 PM »
I agree with the assessment of slaughtersun which stated accurately that the song lengths overstay their welcome. Individual ideas for that matter tend to linger a bit longer than they should which hampers the experience significantly. This is a problem dissection avoided on their first release which I'll continue to hold in higher regard than Dawn. I don't think it's fair to compare FAFTS to dissection as, to my tin ears, the intent is different from Dissection, despite stylistic similarities. I think Dawn had more to say musically than they did artistically, so what you get is a good sense of their feelings towards metal in their objectification into sound rather than emotion produced by extra-musical experience/perception.

253
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: 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.

254
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: 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.

255
Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 07, 2014, 06:15:46 AM »
Quote
I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.

Look at it this way: somebody must atone.

says who?

1 ... 16 [17] 18 ... 26