Happy World Vegan Day! I'll buy you a steak.

[Maurepas]

The source I gave was hosted on the ALF site. There is a big difference. And yes I do support the ALF ideology although most vegans don't.

The source you gave is unreliable, seeing as it came from an organization of criminals and terrorists. How many times must I say it?

What are you talking about? Hamas is a perfect source on Israel,

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I don't see the difference.

If you maintain that you can't see the difference between playing a game, and attacking someone, then you are either willfully ignoring my point, or trolling.

I could see someone tackle someone else on a field a may not know if they are playing a game of rugby or 'attacking' each other.

[Conserative Morality]

Did you actually read the source? It simply uses logic and other sourced documents. If you don't believe it then you won't believe me regardless of my sources or how well formed my argument is.

1. This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became fashionable at the turn of the century, as reports on the customs of societies alien to those found in Europe became available. It fell out of fashion, after the Second World War, although it is occasionally revived. Ethical propositions, we are asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot carry absolute weight.
The main problem with this position is that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable ethical practices, such as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's ideas on racial purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating the Final Solution?
In addition to the inability to denounce practices of other societies, the relativists are unable to counter the arguments of even those whose society they share. They cannot berate someone who proposes to raise and kill infants for industrial pet food consumption, for example, if that person sees it as morally sound. Indeed, they cannot articulate the concept of societal moral progress, since they lack a basis for judging progress. There is no point in turning to the relativists for advice on ethical issues such as euthanasia, infanticide, or the use of fetuses in research.
Faced with such arguments, ethical relativists sometimes argue that ethical truth is based on the beliefs of a society; ethical truth is seen as nothing more than a reflection of societal customs and habits. Butchering animals is acceptable in the West, they would say, because the majority of people think it so.
They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to accept that chattel slavery was right before the US Civil War and wrong thereafter? Can all ethical decisions be decided by conducting opinion polls?
It is true that different societies have different practices that might be seen as ethical by one and unethical by the other. However, these differences result from differing circumstances. For example, in a society where mere survival is key, the diversion of limited food to an infant could detract significantly from the well-being of the existing family members that contribute to food gathering. Given that, infanticide may be the ethically correct course.
The conclusion is that there is such a thing as ethical truth (otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and devoid of proscriptive force). The continuity of thought, then, between those who reject the evils of slavery, racial discrimination, and gender bias, and those who denounce the evils of speciesism becomes striking.

No, it doesn't. It uses faulty logic and appeal to emotion.

[Maurepas]

I don't see the difference.

If you maintain that you can't see the difference between playing a game, and attacking someone, then you are either willfully ignoring my point, or trolling.

I could see someone tackle someone else on a field a may not know if they are playing a game of rugby or 'attacking' each other.

Until you found out they were playing a game, and not trying to kill eachother, of course,

[Fassitude]

Indeed. For this, I prescribe one dose of Antichrist by Lars Von Trier: Willem Dafoe, bloody ejacuation, post testicular crushing, in camera with stunt cock. It also has a clit chopping scene. Not sure if that's to your taste, Fass.

I am Scandinavian. As long as we can make our C&BT porn be considered art, then it's all so totally our bag and major export, baby.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I don't see the difference.

If you maintain that you can't see the difference between playing a game, and attacking someone, then you are either willfully ignoring my point, or trolling.

I could see someone tackle someone else on a field a may not know if they are playing a game of rugby or 'attacking' each other.

Until you found out they were playing a game, and not trying to kill eachother, of course,

What's the difference between the image then?
They could be highly developed chickens who do understand the concept of 'playing'.....
who are you to know?

[Conserative Morality]

I could see someone tackle someone else on a field a may not know if they are playing a game of rugby or 'attacking' each other.

If someone tackles someone else in football, they're trying to get them onto the ground without intent to seriously wound, usually. If someone attacks someone else, they are trying to harm them, generally speaking. If someone kicks a ball in a game of soccer, they are trying to move the ball towards the goal, towards a team mate, or away from another player. If someone attacks a soccer ball, well, for one they're crazy, but they're trying to hurt or wound said ball out of an instinct of 'fight or flight'. Or maybe just aggression and unresolved anger. The point still stands.

[Getbrett]

Indeed. For this, I prescribe one dose of Antichrist by Lars Von Trier: Willem Dafoe, bloody ejacuation, post testicular crushing, in camera with stunt cock. It also has a clit chopping scene. Not sure if that's to your taste, Fass.

I am Scandinavian. As long as we can make our C&BT porn be considered art, then it's all so totally our bag and major export, baby.

It's unfortunate that such a pretty film is also incredibly tedious to watch.

[Conserative Morality]

What's the difference between the image then?
They could be highly developed chickens who do understand the concept of 'playing'.....
who are you to know?

Right. They could also be humans in very convincing chicken suits with a giant ball, and other giant props, in order to garner sympathy for the Vegan movement.

Who are you to know?

[The Syndicate of Man]

It's a big cop-out.

Vegans think that they can somehow avoid the karmic burden of LIVING by "reducing their carbon footprint",
and not taking the life of another creature for sustenance, and riding a bike.

The truth is... that they ignore one thing. Eating vegetables as the bulk, or even 90% or more of your diet is great!
Especially if you are a little rich biatch and can AFFORD the supplements needed to survive as a vegetarian without dangerous nutritional deficiencies. That being said... yeah, people do eat way too much meat in the United States. The largest offender being the McDonalds corporation. I myself eat almost exclusively fish, eggs, and very very rarely turkey. But to say that people are skull***king the earth by eating an occasional hamburger is batsheet insane.

The problem is... that most radical, violent vegans I've met AREN'T scientists. They don't really understand ecology, or the breadth of problems facing the biosphere... or they would realize that people eating meat 3-4 times a week as part of an omnivorous diet is the LEAST of our problems. They CANNOT escape the burden of "sin" just by reducing their consumption and not eating meat. Unless they stop breathing, or retreat to the mountains to buy nothing and grow their own food... they are just as guilty as the rest of us.


Also, due to the nature of our capitalist system. The growing vegan population, and the demand for "organic" (sic) produce has had a chilling consequence that most people who are just trying to eat healthier don't understand.
In their quest to get food that has not been grown with dangerous petrochemical waste (fertilizers and pesticides) they have placed pressure on the giant Agro-Corporations to keep their production cost low, and put out the most produce per hectare they can, while meeting (technically) the definition of "organic"

Enter "MONSANTO CORP" *trumpets sound* and genetically altered crops! Are you aware that you are not required to be told that crops are transgenic engineered plants? Are you also aware that organic methods of agriculture, when applied to factory farming scales, result in HUGE losses due to rot, fungus, viruses, insects, etc.? In order to meet "organic" demand, while keeping the factory farming methods... Corporations have been genetically modifying you so-called "organic" produce to make it resistant to plant pests! (Bon Apetit)

[EvilDarkMagicians]

What's the difference between the image then?
They could be highly developed chickens who do understand the concept of 'playing'.....
who are you to know?

Right. They could also be humans in very convincing chicken suits with a giant ball, and other giant props, in order to garner sympathy for the Vegan movement.

Who are you to know?

I'm not.
All the image was doing is trying to provoke some comedy.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not.
All the image was doing is trying to provoke some comedy.

Yeah, anthropomorphization is quite comedic, let me tell you.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

It's a big cop-out.

Vegans think that they can somehow avoid the karmic burden of LIVING by "reducing their carbon footprint",
and not taking the life of another creature for sustenance, and riding a bike.

The truth is... that they ignore one thing. Eating vegetables as the bulk, or even 90% or more of your diet is great!
Especially if you are a little rich biatch and can AFFORD the supplements needed to survive as a vegetarian without dangerous nutritional deficiencies. That being said... yeah, people do eat way too much meat in the United States. The largest offender being the McDonalds corporation. I myself eat almost exclusively fish, eggs, and very very rarely turkey. But to say that people are skull***king the earth by eating an occasional hamburger is batsheet insane.

The problem is... that most radical, violent vegans I've met AREN'T scientists. They don't really understand ecology, or the breadth of problems facing the biosphere... or they would realize that people eating meat 3-4 times a week as part of an omnivorous diet is the LEAST of our problems. They CANNOT escape the burden of "sin" just by reducing their consumption and not eating meat. Unless they stop breathing, or retreat to the mountains to buy nothing and grow their own food... they are just as guilty as the rest of us.


Also, due to the nature of our capitalist system. The growing vegan population, and the demand for "organic" (sic) produce has had a chilling consequence that most people who are just trying to eat healthier don't understand.
In their quest to get food that has not been grown with dangerous petrochemical waste (fertilizers and pesticides) they have placed pressure on the giant Agro-Corporations to keep their production cost low, and put out the most produce per hectare they can, while meeting (technically) the definition of "organic"

Enter "MONSANTO CORP" *trumpets sound* and genetically altered crops! Are you aware that you are not required to be told that crops are transgenic engineered plants? Are you also aware that organic methods of agriculture, when applied to factory farming scales, result in HUGE losses due to rot, fungus, viruses, insects, etc.? In order to meet "organic" demand, while keeping the factory farming methods... Corporations have been genetically modifying you so-called "organic" produce to make it resistant to plant pests! (Bon Apetit)

I was vegan for years and never once needed to take supplements.

[Fassitude]

It's unfortunate that such a pretty film is also incredibly tedious to watch.

Getbrett, je vous présente le Danemark. Enchanté, sans doute.

[Natapoc]

Did you actually read the source? It simply uses logic and other sourced documents. If you don't believe it then you won't believe me regardless of my sources or how well formed my argument is.

1. This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became fashionable at the turn of the century, as reports on the customs of societies alien to those found in Europe became available. It fell out of fashion, after the Second World War, although it is occasionally revived. Ethical propositions, we are asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot carry absolute weight.
The main problem with this position is that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable ethical practices, such as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's ideas on racial purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating the Final Solution?
In addition to the inability to denounce practices of other societies, the relativists are unable to counter the arguments of even those whose society they share. They cannot berate someone who proposes to raise and kill infants for industrial pet food consumption, for example, if that person sees it as morally sound. Indeed, they cannot articulate the concept of societal moral progress, since they lack a basis for judging progress. There is no point in turning to the relativists for advice on ethical issues such as euthanasia, infanticide, or the use of fetuses in research.
Faced with such arguments, ethical relativists sometimes argue that ethical truth is based on the beliefs of a society; ethical truth is seen as nothing more than a reflection of societal customs and habits. Butchering animals is acceptable in the West, they would say, because the majority of people think it so.
They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to accept that chattel slavery was right before the US Civil War and wrong thereafter? Can all ethical decisions be decided by conducting opinion polls?
It is true that different societies have different practices that might be seen as ethical by one and unethical by the other. However, these differences result from differing circumstances. For example, in a society where mere survival is key, the diversion of limited food to an infant could detract significantly from the well-being of the existing family members that contribute to food gathering. Given that, infanticide may be the ethically correct course.
The conclusion is that there is such a thing as ethical truth (otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and devoid of proscriptive force). The continuity of thought, then, between those who reject the evils of slavery, racial discrimination, and gender bias, and those who denounce the evils of speciesism becomes striking.

No, it doesn't. It uses faulty logic and appeal to emotion.

Really? It sounds like a pretty legit argument to me. What do you think is it's flaw?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I'm not.
All the image was doing is trying to provoke some comedy.

Yeah, anthropomorphization is quite comedic, let me tell you.

Yes, I know.
I found it quite funny.

[The Syndicate of Man]

You really should... It IS difficult to get enough B-12, at the very least, without taking Cyanocobalamin.

The forms of B-12 in Nut. Yeast just don't have a high enough bioavailability.

[Fassitude]

--snip--

TL;DR, mostly BS though.

[The Syndicate of Man]

--snip--

TL;DR, mostly BS though.

lol... okay

*Insert logical fallacy of my credentials as having a Msc in Enviromental science here*

[EvilDarkMagicians]

You really should... It IS difficult to get enough B-12, at the very least, without taking Cyanocobalamin.

The forms of B-12 in Nut. Yeast just don't have a high enough bioavailability.

One word: Cereal.

[The Syndicate of Man]

You really should... It IS difficult to get enough B-12, at the very least, without taking Cyanocobalamin.

The forms of B-12 in Nut. Yeast just don't have a high enough bioavailability.

One word: Cereal.

By cereal, I will assume you refer to mass produced breakfast cereal that has had vitamins added which are derived from bacterial and mineral sources.

You don't consider that to be a supplement?

Also dude... you really shouldn't rely on just cereal to meet your nutritional requirements... yeah, there may be "100%" of your daily requirement of the B Vitamins in a bowl... but your liver just passes most of that right through to your kidneys without touching it. You need to take a LOT of the stuff to meet your nutritional req. Why do you think B vitamin pills have 5-10,000% of the daily value of all of them?

[Tunizcha]

You really should... It IS difficult to get enough B-12, at the very least, without taking Cyanocobalamin.

The forms of B-12 in Nut. Yeast just don't have a high enough bioavailability.

One word: Cereal.

One word: Honeynutcheerios.

[Fassitude]

*Insert logical fallacy of my credentials as having a Msc in Enviromental science here*

*insert me feigning to care and being impressed*

[Conserative Morality]

Really? It sounds like a pretty legit argument to me. What do you think is it's flaw?

Fine, if you honestly cannot see the glaring flaws in this argument, allow me to point them out.

1. This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became fashionable at the turn of the century, as reports on the customs of societies alien to those found in Europe became available. It fell out of fashion, after the Second World War, although it is occasionally revived. Ethical propositions, we are asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot carry absolute weight.

So far, so good.

The main problem with this position is that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable ethical practices, such as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's ideas on racial purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating the Final Solution?

Appeal to spite, Straw man.

In addition to the inability to denounce practices of other societies, the relativists are unable to counter the arguments of even those whose society they share. They cannot berate someone who proposes to raise and kill infants for industrial pet food consumption, for example, if that person sees it as morally sound. Indeed, they cannot articulate the concept of societal moral progress, since they lack a basis for judging progress. There is no point in turning to the relativists for advice on ethical issues such as euthanasia, infanticide, or the use of fetuses in research.

General Appeal to emotion, Ad Hominem, general argument from ignorance.

Faced with such arguments, ethical relativists sometimes argue that ethical truth is based on the beliefs of a society; ethical truth is seen as nothing more than a reflection of societal customs and habits. Butchering animals is acceptable in the West, they would say, because the majority of people think it so.

Straw Man claiming that Ethical Relativists are using Argumentum Ad Populum.

They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to accept that chattel slavery was right before the US Civil War and wrong thereafter? Can all ethical decisions be decided by conducting opinion polls?

Once again, Straw Man relating to the use of Appeal to the Majority, proof by example.

It is true that different societies have different practices that might be seen as ethical by one and unethical by the other. However, these differences result from differing circumstances. For example, in a society where mere survival is key, the diversion of limited food to an infant could detract significantly from the well-being of the existing family members that contribute to food gathering. Given that, infanticide may be the ethically correct course.

Special Pleading.

The conclusion is that there is such a thing as ethical truth (otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and devoid of proscriptive force). The continuity of thought, then, between those who reject the evils of slavery, racial discrimination, and gender bias, and those who denounce the evils of speciesism becomes striking.

Hasty Generalization, Ad hominem.

[Getbrett]

It's unfortunate that such a pretty film is also incredibly tedious to watch.

Getbrett, je vous présente le Danemark. Enchanté, sans doute.

Denmark perhaps. Danes? I spent a very drunken night with a gaggle of Danish lesbians for Halloween. There's nothing more amusing than a hulking Scandinavian butch dressed as a lobster picking a fight with a flamboyant fag in a silver PVC bodysuit.