death metal underground
The Ultimate Death Metal Resource
Death Metal Search Engine
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 - Forbinator
Perhaps I am missing something. Say I am opposed to the murder of humans because of their fine manipulative control of their surrounding ecosystem, as you put it...This position is a non-sequitur, as being part of a regime that controls nature is unrelated to one's suitability/propensity/will to continue living. It's a non-sequitur in the same way as being opposed to murdering white people because of the colour of their skin. Also remember how white people have had the power to manipulate and control black people in the past.
...This makes them akin to gods. The rest of nature is profane. Humanity is Sacred. How is this position incoherent? By your own definition, nature and humanity are separate entities. "Speciesism" (I feel dirty just typing that nonsense out) is the only logical outcome.I suppose you could assign some kind of "merit" to humanity (I wouldn't) for its ability to destroy nature. We need to unpack what is really meant by speciesism (and by extension, bigotry) though. I can provide some examples that may help:
I have limited supplies of sunscreen, so I preferentially offer it to the white person sitting next to me in preference to the black person.
Verdict: The requirement for sunscreen is linked biologically or physiologically to race in this example, so the association is not a non-sequitur, therefore it is not racism, and not bigotry.
I have a policy of hiring white people in preference to black people in cases where their qualifications are comparable.
Verdict: The ability to do the job is not logically related to race, so the association is a non-sequitur, therefore it is racism (bigotry).
I hear about a captive breeding program for an endangered species. I'm pretty uncomfortable about it because I know I would never accept such a thing for humans, but it's explained to me that because of how badly we've screwed the ecosystem, this species is likely to go extinct, which will have a flow-on effect and harm other animals, and the breeding program will boost numbers in the wild.
Verdict: Since we have caused the demise of the species through our ability to manipulate nature, and their low numbers have now become a characteristic of the species that necessitates increasing the numbers, it logically follows that we should use our manipulation of nature in a way that directly addresses the characteristic of endangerment and helps the species and surrounding ecosystem. I might be opposed to keeping animals in captivity, but I wouldn't be able to use speciesism as grounds for opposition, since the necessity is logically connected to species differences and is not a non-sequitur. This is therefore not speciesism or bigotry.
I'm getting lazy now. So just think of an example where you say it's ok to kill someone because of Characteristic X, but in reality Characteristic X has nothing to do with suitability/propensity/will to continue living. If X is a race then it's racism. If X is a species, or the possession of a tail/feathers/gills, lack of opposing thumbs, ability to be controlled by humans (which is effectively the reason you used) etc. then it's speciesism, a form of bigotry.
Basically, in order for the killing in Example 4 to be logically consistent, Characteristic X would have to relate directly to suitability/propensity/will to live. If you have a policy of killing the terminally ill and suffering (euthanasia) then this would not be a non-sequitur. You could say a similar thing about killing all suicidal people. I would still be opposed to it and deem it unnecessary, but I wouldn't be able to call you a bigot.
It is the "while he sleeps" that is causing the debate to stall, and that is because it is contrived to do so. Killing someone "while he sleeps" is not solely part of a toolkit. Whereas attacking vulnerability certainly is part of a toolkit, this particular example ought to concurrently be considered a circumstance, a setting. We're talking about the difference between choosing which weapons to take to a battle, versus deciding under which circumstances battle is an acceptable option in the first place. Those are two completely distinct factors, and the intent to combine them into one is just plain manipulative.Surely choosing circumstance is part of the toolkit?
But yes, doing so can be honorable. It depends. Are you killing him to steal his car keys? Then no, I doubt anyone would find that honorable(or even understandable, frankly). But what if you're killing him because he raped your daughter and managed to squirm his way out of prison time? I would consider that an honorable killing.Agreed. Did any of the animals killed for meat, eggs and dairy knowingly rape your daughter?
Honor doesn't have anything to do with fairness anyway, honor refers simply to preserving your reputation among your fellow men.I guess if you're saying that a level playing field doesn't matter in a discussion of honour (or even ethics I assume) then there's probably no point arguing that last bit. Either way, it's a non-sequitur if we're talking about whether someone should be killed.
In context of the hunt, though: you seem to fail to understand that humans use spears, arrows, traps, and guns because humans are at an inherent physical disadvantage. It is not a matter of men already being stronger, faster, and smarter than beasts, and then piling on even more ways to enforce superiority. The animal already exists at a higher level, and is in its element; these tools are ways to level the playing field.
It's so weird to hear the word "extreme" used to describe veganism, as if eating abundant fruit and veg while wearing cotton/polyester/synthetics makes a person some kind of ascetic. If you want to see "extreme", visit a slaughterhouse.
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?The tiger is acting out of necessity. Furthermore, he/she doesn't understand the concept of honour, so it's quite irrelevant trying to attribute the words honorable or dishonorable to a tiger. The question makes as much sense as if you had asked about the tiger's ability to solve differential equations.
I think I will take the advice of others and leave it at that, unless anyone asks a direct question. On the idea of synthesis, perhaps this has been achieved to an extent as we have identified the key differences in political views that would prevent many here from agreeing with my position.
Lol That's hilarious:I'm not saying I honestly believe we can eradicate all violence against the innocent. My use of the word "shouldn't" was deliberate, and when it comes down to it, any discussion about ethics is really a discussion about what we should/shouldn't do. Of course you're welcome to reject ethics entirely if you like, and that would be a coherent position.
"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.
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.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Can we at least agree that humans (at least those in civilisation) are the only species that has fine manipulative control of surrounding ecosystems? And that an argument concerning ethics would dictate that this brings with it responsibilities?
Understood. Let's just leave it at that since it's ultimately a question of radically different values.My position is that if you are ethically opposed to murder of humans, then it would follow that you would have to be vegan. And if you believe that racism and sexism are ethically and logically incoherent ideologies, then you have to be against speciesism in the same way. So if you are not against murder, racism and sexism, then you're right that it's best to leave it at that.
Because the question concerned whether killing could be honorable (which I took to require fairness), even though in my opinion neither of these things are even relevant to the ethics of killing. If you think that using the full tool kit is still honorable, then you would logically have to think that it is honorable to kill a man with a baseball bat while he sleeps.QuoteSo 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.
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.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. 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.
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.
Wild,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.
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.
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.
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!
In my view, deer are like every other creature: there's a carrying capacity per acre.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?
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.
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.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.
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 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 don't really disagree with you. What strikes me most about the vegan position is the general misanthropy of their beliefs towards people, when people do the same things all life on this planet will do - due to limited space and limited resources - it is only a matter of scale that makes our actions seem more heinous. I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.Many vegans are misanthropic, but the concept of "no unnecessary violence or slavery" is one that veganism applies to humans as well non-human animals. You are right that we do have different expectations of civilised human behaviour as compared to that of a lion or caveman. This isn't because of misanthropy, as it actually upholds a higher standard in humans because in civilisation we are capable of making ethical decisions. I would never criticise an ancient tribe living isolated from society which relies on fishing/hunting as a food source.
Where is the balance?
I don't quite understand your connection between limited resources and the need to exploit animals. Obviously increased population means increased food production (which currently involves animals) but in order to achieve this it would make more sense to use more efficient forms of production, which means feeding all our soy and grain etc. directly to humans. As it stands, we artificially inflate the herbivore population, then feed them 80% of the world's soy, 85% of which they literally turn to shit, and then eat the small portion of it that converts to "food".
Why are all vegans perpetually angry?Because we are surrounded by people who are either unwilling or unable to grasp basic logic, including members of our family who we would otherwise respect.
We are surrounded by speciesism, but with no justification given for exactly what the relevant differences are between people and cows (for example) that make one ok to kill but not the other, because it is so ingrained within society. Everyone we know is ethically opposed to the murder of innocent humans for food/pleasure/entertainment etc. yet they fail to extend this same position to other sentient animals based on a naturalistic fallacy ie. "but the cavemen did it!" or "but lions eat zebras!" as if cavemen and wild animals are a reasonable model to base one's ethics upon in civilised society. Adopting caveman/lion ethics is effectively the same as dismissing ethics altogether, which could be a logically coherent position as long as you don't complain if a beloved human is murdered.
I'm angry because I feel as if I'm surrounded by racists (speciesists) who say "but we are the superior species!" Now if for example, Hitler had scientific proof that Jews were inferior, would this have made the Holocaust justifiable? Of course not. The branding of someone as "inferior" is just a defence mechanism to make people feel better about unnecessary exploitation/harm of sentient innocent beings. I'm surrounded by holocaust deniers, who seem to pretend that it isn't their fault that we unnecessarily kill 60 billion land animals and about a trillion sea animals each year.
I'm surrounded by people who make excuses like "I think you own something that may have been produced in less than fair working conditions, so it's ok for me to kill animals everyday for no reason", when they know this excuse would not stand if the atrocities they were committing were against humans. 99% of all the suffering and death we cause is through consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. Quit eating those and then I'll happily discuss the other 1% with you.
But in real life I'm actually pretty chilled out. If people think I'm a dickhead they'll never side with me.
« on: December 07, 2012, 01:35:56 PM »
Fair enough. "Diagnoses" was the wrong word to use, and I should have instead used "Syndromes". I guess they can just be thought of as categories of personality type, both of which are probably very conducive to good art.
« on: December 06, 2012, 12:47:24 PM »
Both seem like very accurate diagnoses!
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:10:27 PM »
Despite the hipster hype, Xasthur's "Telepathic with the Deceased" truly is a great album. I would rank it one level below Joined in Darkness. Everything after that got shockingly boring.To be honest I'd rate "Subliminal Genocide" a cut above the other Xasthur that I've heard. I'm a drooling Leviathan fanboy though, so should probably be ignored.
Thanks for posting those links! Something that occurred to me while watching, was that all three men seemed very much "in touch with their feelings" and self-reflecting, probably to a greater extent than most of society. This is probably necessary to create such powerful art, and flies in the face of the autism/Asperger's stereotype mentioned earlier. On the one hand they reject humanity, but on the other they can't escape their own.