OfTheDunedain Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 For starters, the "needless" context is satisfied with this statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: "appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle" If it's not wrong to needlessly kill animals, is it wrong to needlessly kill humans? If yes, this implies there is a difference/some differences between animals and humans that allowed you to make this distinction. What are these traits? If you applied these traits back onto a human context, would it be okay to needlessly kill the human? Please consider going vegan
barn Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 Welcome to the board @OfTheDunedain e. g. - In France a vegan couple's child died of malnutrition, vitamin deficiency... source (the first article, though there are many more examples there) p.s. (What are the main requirements of the non-agression principle? I mean you do agree with N.A.P. right?!)
barn Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 A few more arguments, or funsies... depending on what people are prepared to see.
RichardY Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 So if a pedestrian(stupidly or carelessly) steps into the road without looking, I could(no I couldn't, unless in war time, maybe.) keep on going "mowing" them down, as if a fly impacting the windscreen. Needlessly killing them. Though to avoid damage to the car, I'd be better off perhaps with a Volvo(a bit urbane, something that can survive the moose test) or a Cadilac(means from the town interesting). Had a grandfather on my mother's side who was a paratrooper in Greece. Apparently on occasion he killed civilians, drove trucks, narrow roads, possibly on raids. Anyway, games developers don't usually(ever) include civilians on Call of Duty games (PC shooters games). Needfully killing would imply some kind of motive behind the action. Though in actuality there is a false dichtonmy between needless and needful. If you go Vegan I would recommend at least eating fish, some essential components of the diet are difficult to get otherwise. I heard that once from a mountain wildwater rafter mainguide, his wife was vegan had ocd, was fairly insane, though the lack of animal matter can send you crazy even if you micromanage.. Though some are vegan for religious reasons, there is a strength in the idea of God, so I'd be torn from overtly telling them to be vegan if they really need their faith. Personally though I'd prefer something like a cheesesteak... sandwich... In the case of the sub: Gluten, transfats, indigestible milk proteins. I like onions although they don't like me.
OfTheDunedain Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 9 hours ago, barn said: Welcome to the board @OfTheDunedain e. g. - In France a vegan couple's child died of malnutrition, vitamin deficiency... source (the first article, though there are many more examples there) p.s. (What are the main requirements of the non-agression principle? I mean you do agree with N.A.P. right?!) Thanks @barn. You're right, an unplanned vegan diet is pretty stupid. I'd say any unplanned diet is stupid. Hypothetically, if a vegan diet were nutritionally adequate, would you go vegan? I believe the NAP is "I won't harm you, so you don't harm me"
OfTheDunedain Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 @RichardY I agree that killing an animal per se is not immoral. E.g. if I'm being attacked by an animal, I will protect myself. If that means killing the animal, then so be it. I'll ask you the same question that I asked barn: Hypothetically, if a vegan diet were nutritionally adequate, would you go vegan?
OfTheDunedain Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 @barn you really want me to respond to this? If so, I'll ask you to pick a specific thing (or things) he mentions, then we can discuss.
RichardY Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, OfTheDunedain said: @RichardY I agree that killing an animal per se is not immoral. E.g. if I'm being attacked by an animal, I will protect myself. If that means killing the animal, then so be it. I'll ask you the same question that I asked barn: Hypothetically, if a vegan diet were nutritionally adequate, would you go vegan? I think a vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate, though unless you have ocd and nothing else to do, not particulary viable. Talking more along the lines of roadkill, than actually caring about the carrion. Why is a raven like a writing desk? Because he doesn't care. In order to kill, you must first kill the idea. (or something like that)
barn Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 2 hours ago, OfTheDunedain said: Thanks @barn. You're right, an unplanned vegan diet is pretty stupid. I'd say any unplanned diet is stupid. Hypothetically, if a vegan diet were nutritionally adequate, would you go vegan? You're welcome (? I guess) 2 hours ago, OfTheDunedain said: I believe the NAP is "I won't harm you, so you don't harm me" I concede to unplanned, ... any unplanned action is risky to various degrees. Especially nutritional intake, metabolic cycle, predisposition... etc. Regarding your question about the hypothetical scenario... Simply put, I don't mind what people are choosing to do with the facts they uncover. Narrowing it down to me, I wouldn't. ° certain types of food/tastes I like ° not fully convinced that adequate & complete intake of essential amino acids/vitamins can be achieved, even though it's been proven how versatile can the body become producing them, besides supplements such as Spirulina(in certain cases of individuals, entirely, regardless if fully vegan... I'd have to do a even deeper analysis... etc., feasibility) ° bioavailability of Zinc, Iron and trace minerals is CONSIDERably lower (perhaps don't enjoy eating so much lentils, spinach... even though I eat them frequently, Spirulina here again) ° (overabundance of stabilisers, soy derivatives... I know, I know... cooking daily can deal with most of it, a good system and conscious maintenance after a while becomes built-in, 'effortless'.) My view here(briefly, maybe of interest to you) : ° low (6-8) times a month meat consumption, avoiding certain 'breeds' but not entire groups of meat, like pork or beef (as they have huge differences, not all are from 'meat-factories') ° established, vetted producers, buying with others jointly and whenever possible local/seasonal (encourage, sustainability) ° growing something, anything that's food at home (appreciation, learning, mood-boost, complementing) ° trying to buy the best quality, not the most expensive or hyped, even if home-made (organic, seal of approval don't mean a thing in general... wink-wink) 2 hours ago, OfTheDunedain said: I believe the NAP is "I won't harm you, so you don't harm me" No. Maybe you were thinking of the right thing but it perhaps 'came out' a bit differently. There's no, there should be no "so" or "won't". (as in: <regardless the other's actions,> no initiation of force, self-defense is Ok) Now, this is neat and simple but the problem is, you can't expect to have it with all that's alive. There's a very important requirement, of which must be present (I guess two but they're closely related). What do you think, what is it/are those?
Siegfried von Walheim Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 I don't really care; I mean, they're animals. As an after-the-fact rationalization: since most animals regularly break the NAP and are incapable of moral thought, they have no "rights" to protect. I suppose a handful of requisites for humanity are this: being a biped hominid; being capable of reason; capable of moral thought; capable of self-restraint; and capable of empathy. Obviously there's holes in my requisites (like what about sociopaths that don't hurt people and take morality serious) but I think being able to think and be moral are sufficient differentiators from the "humanoids" and the animals. To further answer your questions: if a human being behaved like an animal (attacked other people, was without remorse, incapable of morality, etc. etc.) then yes he ought to be treated the same as an animal since he's effectively a "human-animal".
Observing Libertarian Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 Veganism is an unnatural state for humans. It can be done, but not by any means other than humans living in a technologically advanced society which has progressed well past subsistence and into the realm of near (not quite, but near) post-scarcity. For a Human to be healthy on a Vegan diet: requires two things, simultaneously. 1, Chemically purified and artificially produced vitamin supplements. 2, Large scale industrial agriculture. Both of which are, by human standards, such a high degree of technological capacity that a completely healthy vegan diet, not lacking in nutrition, was only possible in the late 20th century. Humans, like Bears, are omnivorous, by nature. In a natural setting a human body cannot obtain all of it's nutritional needs from either vegetation alone nor animal meat alone. This is why you get the Vegan attempt at a moralizing argument that because humans, currently, can live without animal products: they should and therefore killing animals for food or other goods is simply defined as being "needless". -This ignores the fact that over 90% of the human race does not live within a nation capable of producing either vegetation or the chemically purified nutritional supplements necessary to support a Vegan life style. -This ignores the fact that the 10% of the human race living within first world nations with the industry and technology necessary to support a vegan diet have enough of precisely neither to support a vegan diet for even 30% of that population. The reason people find fairly easy to go Vegan, is because they are an extreme minority: therefore there's plenty of produce. 0.5% ( https://www.vegetariantimes.com/uncategorized/vegetarianism-in-america ) If a substantial portion of the population decided to go Vegan: even the United States with it's extremely advanced industrial farming would incapable of supporting even 20% of the population subsisting entirely on vegetation. There isn't enough farm land to produce that much vegetation. To say nothing of the vitamin and nutrient supplement production which would have to rapidly expand a fantastic number of magnitudes in order to serve the nutritional needs of that many people. The Vegan argument that because humans can live a healthy lifestyle without killing animals: killing animals is unnecessary - is simply a lie. It's a fallacious fantasy indulged in by ignorant, spoiled, petulant, emotionally fragile children who have no concept of reality as it exists outside the very wealthy liberal bubbles in which they live. A select number, with hard limitation placed upon it, of people can live a 100% vegan lifestyle. A tiny fraction of the current population could live as vegans because that's the total sum of people which could be supported by industrial farming and chemically purified nutritional supplements. There exists neither land mass to grow enough food, nor the production capacity of supplements necessary to support a large population of Vegans: even if the entirety of the first world pooled their resources to attempt to accomplish this task. I regard the vegan argument as emotionalism devoid of any semblance of perspective on factual reality and completely disregard anyone who makes that argument as being repugnant. When masses of human lives, every year, every month, every day, every hour, every minute and in fact every second; are dying of starvation - Vegans want to attempt to moralize their unicorn fantasy land of vegan Utopia, something quite literally not possible to produce, and halt food production - because of the poor animals. I find these people disgusting that they place a greater value on the well being of species other than their own.
barn Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) Hi @Observing Libertarian Welcome to the board! 14 hours ago, Observing Libertarian said: Veganism is an unnatural state for humans. It can be done, but not by any means other than humans living in a technologically advanced society which has progressed well past subsistence and into the realm of near (not quite, but near) post-scarcity. For a Human to be healthy on a Vegan diet: requires two things, simultaneously. 1, Chemically purified and artificially produced vitamin supplements. 2, Large scale industrial agriculture. Both of which are, by human standards, such a high degree of technological capacity that a completely healthy vegan diet, not lacking in nutrition, was only possible in the late 20th century. Humans, like Bears, are omnivorous, by nature. In a natural setting a human body cannot obtain all of it's nutritional needs from either vegetation alone nor animal meat alone. This is why you get the Vegan attempt at a moralizing argument that because humans, currently, can live without animal products: they should and therefore killing animals for food or other goods is simply defined as being "needless". -This ignores the fact that over 90% of the human race does not live within a nation capable of producing either vegetation or the chemically purified nutritional supplements necessary to support a Vegan life style. -This ignores the fact that the 10% of the human race living within first world nations with the industry and technology necessary to support a vegan diet have enough of precisely neither to support a vegan diet for even 30% of that population. The reason people find fairly easy to go Vegan, is because they are an extreme minority: therefore there's plenty of produce. 0.5% ( https://www.vegetariantimes.com/uncategorized/vegetarianism-in-america ) If a substantial portion of the population decided to go Vegan: even the United States with it's extremely advanced industrial farming would incapable of supporting even 20% of the population subsisting entirely on vegetation. There isn't enough farm land to produce that much vegetation. To say nothing of the vitamin and nutrient supplement production which would have to rapidly expand a fantastic number of magnitudes in order to serve the nutritional needs of that many people. The Vegan argument that because humans can live a healthy lifestyle without killing animals: killing animals is unnecessary - is simply a lie. It's a fallacious fantasy indulged in by ignorant, spoiled, petulant, emotionally fragile children who have no concept of reality as it exists outside the very wealthy liberal bubbles in which they live. A select number, with hard limitation placed upon it, of people can live a 100% vegan lifestyle. A tiny fraction of the current population could live as vegans because that's the total sum of people which could be supported by industrial farming and chemically purified nutritional supplements. There exists neither land mass to grow enough food, nor the production capacity of supplements necessary to support a large population of Vegans: even if the entirety of the first world pooled their resources to attempt to accomplish this task. I regard the vegan argument as emotionalism devoid of any semblance of perspective on factual reality and completely disregard anyone who makes that argument as being repugnant. When masses of human lives, every year, every month, every day, every hour, every minute and in fact every second; are dying of starvation - Vegans want to attempt to moralize their unicorn fantasy land of vegan Utopia, something quite literally not possible to produce, and halt food production - because of the poor animals. I find these people disgusting that they place a greater value on the well being of species other than their own. Looking back... this is another case for freedom, yet again. Guys, seriously. How have we not achieved it already? Almost all arguments tend to lead the way BACK to free-choice and CONSEQUENCES... Anyhow. Treat these as 'preliminaries'(if you don't have anything to add/clarify /correct, a simple yes/no will suffice) : 0. tri-part (zero argument) a. Free-will, naturally (NAP, respect property) but consequences acrew nevertheless. (As in: You get what you pay for. Fair 'n square, objective, even if open to un-coerced negotiations.) b. "Omni-" does NOT require, it only provides options... (As in: You choose but you don't have to use every availability.) c. What we've managed to achieve is not what we can achieve(full potential), to derive predictions for the future from what we 'could' is reasonable but isn't the whole truth, LESS IMPORTANT THAN upholding/perfecting the methods/principles that will deliver an output for the ever-changing conglomerate of needs IN REAL TIME vs. 'planned'. 1. Is it true that a relaxed regulation on food production, supplements, techniques, additives, apart from its initial hurdles would mean a greater independence and alleviation of partial food costs for the public, it being optional and remaining competitive in the market of all things, will be causing the adaption to the actual and REAL needs of people, simplifying food+secondary produce production as a whole? (As in: medicinal, food-, feedstock crops would be produced at a greater scale, utilising potential that's currently wasted, induce for an improvement of quality production=demand as a whole, progressively save (a fraction, initially, of the) transportation costs, raise level of 'know-how', encourage community strengthening tendencies, in-built feedback will much better toggle between economical (governed by demand) activities ... etc.) 2. The cost of producing meat/veg. IS NOT reflected in the cost of meat/veg. as they're subsidised, 'Big Food' regulates it all. 'What you subsidise is what you let spiral out of the boundaries of reality... ' (As in: approx 80-90% potable water goes into agriculture, to a greater degree into feedstock = 50% of that is ONLY for feedstock, gargantuan waste of supplements... nitrate blooms, methane... etc. ) 3. two parts a. Mono culture + mechanisation nets a quick boost, a limited number of repeated 'extorting the land' but brings about tons of secondary complications, inducing for a massive secondary industry dependent on 'abusive' agricultural methods. b. Polyculture is the opposite of monoculture, it aims at maximising the effectiveness at which different types of plants can be grown together, in a 'non-exhausting' fashion, more laborious in general(for now), far more sustainable and requires less *-ticides when executed well, produce is better quality(nurient content vs. water). (As in(over-simplyfied): Corn field vs. patches(adapted terrain of Corn+legumes+green leaf veg. + proximity of pollinators & 'scaled-down' tending, 'involved' farmers not only / other than economical gain ) 4. Humans respond to incentives. Give them 'good enough' incentives to shift more towards consuming less meat and they'll do so. (As in: better parenting, conscientiousness level raised, critical thinking raised, independence raised... etc. -> You can't sell coercion in a freely thinking society. People defend their interests.) 5. The possibility for the human body to produce certain 'building blocks' does not mean it will manifest the same in every person, situation, time-frame... can't be bogged down, must be highly individualistic when framing it in respect to dietary needs. No general rule of thumb here. (As in: You'd be surprised how many 'mutants', special requirements there are... the more we respond to the individual needs, the better we do overall... as in(*2):, 'There's no average in reality'.) Edited May 9, 2018 by barn typos, cleared it up a bit
Observing Libertarian Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 @barn Thanks for welcome. However, in this case, it's much simpler than your post pre-supposes. The US is already operating as very near 100% capacity in terms of vegetative foodstocks. Most people don't know this, I do because I looked it up one day while creating a mathematical proof for bio-fuel production. However, it is true if you look up the volume of farmland and then deduct the acreages of land which farmers are paid, using tax revenues, to not grow on. In spite of the fact that the farmland, the literal available area on which to grow foodstocks, already operating at near capacity: the US only produces a surplus in vegetative food stocks in the form of corn to the tune of 1.631 billion bushels left unsold. Veganism, unlike simple vegetarianism allows for no animal products and no animal byproducts. No red meat, no poultry, no fish, milk, cheese, butter, etc. etc. There is not a volume of land mass on which to grow vegetation in a vast enough quantity to support a substantial portion of the US population even if you combined the vegetative growing territories of several countries not just the US. Even employing the extremely advanced agricultural system which is already in place today which does make use of poly-cultures, mono-cultures, genetically modified seeds, chemically fertilized fields, multi-harvested crop rotations. It's theoretically possible to create self sustaining societies in a far off Logans Run dome city complex by building multi tired vegetative food stock groweries. Places with thin soil which is constantly saturated with chemical fertilizer through sprinkler systems and the plants are bombarded with UV light nonstop in a temperature controlled area, thus radically reducing the time between harvests with no risk of soil depletion. By taking crop production in doors and applying what methodologies pot growers have developed in the realm industrial herbaceous plant production: you have the potential to increase vegetative food stock production. I say in "theoretically": because this has never been done - and therefore the absolute numbers on what plants can be grown in such a way for what level and size of facility, along with just how often said plants can be harvested in this manner, are all unknowns as of yet. Theoretically, because you should be able to grow things like yams, potatoes, beets, cabbage, carrots, etc. with fairly shallow soil: you could grow foodstocks on tables which have drainage run offs to get rid of excess chemical fertilizer and UV emitting lights bombarding the tables at all times. That should allow said plants to reach harvest size faster than in fields. -However, another issue which is as of yet unknown: will the vegetable in question have the same nutritional value if it grows quite as rapidly? -Also, this methodology only functions, in an area efficient manners with shallow soil or top soil plants. Much of this discussion, though relevant to talk about: has breached reality into the realm of science fiction (currently). I don't have an issue with talking about theoretical possibilities: but I strongly urge against abandoning the realm of reality in order to chase theories on "What could be done at some point." Just because I'm smart enough to design a foodstock production complex which would dramatically increase food production capacity: doesn't mean I have the funds to build it and it also doesn't mean anyone else is going to be build it anytime soon. The future will come in it's own due time, the present is what's most pressing. At present: there is not a way to support a vegan diet for a substantial portion of the population of the first world - which is the only society technologically capable of supporting a vegan diet without an individual becoming malnourished. Which excludes the vast majority of the population on the planet. At present, only a fraction of a fraction of the human race is capable of living on a vegan diet due to the technological infrastructure required to enable such a diet (industrious agriculture + artificially produced chemically purified nutritional supplements). This is why the vegan argument "needlessly killing animals is wrong, we should all be vegan" is a complete and utter fallacy. Now... All that being said. If someone wants to argue that people consider veganism for health benefits: confirmed - that's a good argument. If someone wants to argue that people consider veganism for weight loss: confirmed - that's a good argument. It is only the emotionalist argument that everyone should be vegan because those poor animals which is fallacious because it's a pipe dream. I don't mean to say pipe dream as in communist Utopianism: I mean fallacy as in asking that two plus two equal five. In this case, it's asking that landmass Q, physically capable of producing P, instead produce R which is a dozen magnitudes greater than P. Two plus two equals four, not four-hundred, which is what is being asked.
barn Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Observing Libertarian said: However, in this case, it's much simpler than your post pre-supposes. Oh, yeah I agree. Definitely. It's much simpler, indeed. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed reading.
Recommended Posts