Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackie Blue]

I'm not saying dogs can't be vegetarians, just that it's rather silly to turn a carnivore into an herbivore.

[Hat]

He's right though, in that dogs transfer well to a vegetarian diet compared to other domestic animals. Cats simply will kill for meat they aren't obtaining from their owners, but dogs tend to accept it, and the dogs I've seen who have had owners transfer their own ethical standards of food consumption onto their dogs have done fairly well for the most part, although it seems to depend a great deal on the breed. Surprisingly, I've seen staffies adjust well to a vegetarian diet, while Laboradors don't seem to do it as easily, which I thought was interesting considering I'd think it was the other way around.

I think this says more about the obedience of dogs to their masters compared to cats though, than it does anything about the merits of vegetarianism.

[Jackie Blue]

Yet another reason cats are superior to dogs in every conceivable way.

They actually think for themselves!  Imagine that.

[KharBevNor]

Man, the land use argument annoys me. It annoys me because it reveals a crucial misunderstanding of how agriculture functions. I mean, I live in the country and know farmers and shit, but didn't they cover this shit in school? I mean seriously. I can't be bothered to explain going to lay it out to you with some simple questions

1) Have you ever tried eating grass?
2) Do you know what the difference between arable land and pasture is?
3) Do you know what percentage of the worlds land is arable?
4) Have you ever tried growing soya on a welsh hillside?

Certain methods of farming animals are incredibly inefficient, but this isn't really an argument against eating meat. Its more an argument against eating american beef.

You know what would really save the planet? More birth control and less poverty.

[a pack of wolves]

1) I have actually! I was a small child, and marginally less intelligent than I am now. It was not a taste sensation.
2) Yes.
3) About 1/5 according to wikipedia (so probably something else entirely).
4) No.

I remember them teaching us about conservation of energy in school and the amount that gets lost if you go from plants to animals to humans instead of plants to humans. Of course, not all land which is suitable for raising animals is suitable for growing crops. But then again a lot of the land used for growing crops is used for crops that are to be fed to animals. Humans eating some meat is not unsustainable particularly if it's locally sourced (and I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has said it isn't anyway), you are absolutely right there, but humans eating the amount of meat we do at the moment uses up far more resources than I feel is good for the planet.

[Nodaisho]

Now, this could be an absolute lie, though my father should have known better than to tell his son that something was edible that wasn't when said son was three or four, but I think the part of grass that is underground can actually be good for you (the whitish part), I don't remember it tasting bad.

[Jackie Blue]

but humans eating the amount of meat we do at the moment uses up far more resources than I feel is good for the planet.

Here's what gets me about the "resources" argument: it's bullshit.

Do you know how much resource-wasting goes into humans eating anything at all that they don't grow themself or buy from a local farmer?

It's like the recycling argument: People just blandly accept this propaganda that "oh, of course it's good to recycle", when in point of fact, the recycling industry is arguably more damaging to the environment than landfills.  Aluminum is just about the only thing that is easily and cleanly recyclable; recycling paper is a giant environmental clusterfuck.

[Nodaisho]

Huh... I never knew that. What about compressing plastic? You can make benches out of that, probably tables and chairs and desks too.

Does paper have nutrients in it for trees? Why not just shred it and use that to supplement a trees growth if so?

I think part of it is that even if it is worse for the environment, we are also using less trees if we recycle paper. Course, I never read any independent studies, all I know about recycling is said propaganda, so I could be wrong on that point.

[a pack of wolves]

Here's what gets me about the "resources" argument: it's bullshit.

Do you know how much resource-wasting goes into humans eating anything at all that they don't grow themself or buy from a local farmer?

Huge amounts of resources go into food that isn't sourced locally. And don't forget about the amount of resources that go into cooking, for example boiling potatoes without a lid on the pan uses up a shocking amount more resources than if you just put the lid on or if you were eating something that didn't even require cooking. Everything uses a resource of some kind. What that means is that there are a lot of things that need to be considered when it comes to the use of resources, not that the amount of meat we as a species currently consume is sustainable. It isn't.

[Jackie Blue]

I think part of it is that even if it is worse for the environment, we are also using less trees if we recycle paper.

This is another popular propaganda bullshit talking point.  The trees we currently use for paper only exist because they were planted to be harvested to make paper.

We are not running out of trees.  The industries which depend on harvesting trees ensure that they plant enough new ones to keep the cycle going.

EDIT: Not that you should blandly believe Penn and Teller either, but they do a good job of hitting a lot of the best points in an entertaining way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Aae5dmxnA

[a pack of wolves]

This is true, for example in Brazil the main cause of deforestation is for land for cattle ranching and soybean production (mainly to be used as feed for livestock). Paper isn't much of a cause at all globally.

[Nodaisho]

My worry is the amount of time it takes for a tree to grow to a decent size, do they have enough wherever to not end up chopping down a bunch of the old ones before they can use the new trees?

At least paper decomposes, I don't believe plastic does (though again, that is from the same propaganda), but there are things you can do with busted tires and bottles and whatnot, and for the ones that don't decompose, and don't get re-used? The earth will simply adjust to a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. Cookie to whoever gets that quote without searching.

[Jackie Blue]

My worry is the amount of time it takes for a tree to grow to a decent size, do they have enough wherever to not end up chopping down a bunch of the old ones before they can use the new trees?

Yes.  It is a fact that America has more trees now than we ever have.

[Johnny C]

This is another popular propaganda bullshit talking point.  The trees we currently use for paper only exist because they were planted to be harvested to make paper.

Hahaha, oh man. Visit British Columbia sometime.

[Nodaisho]

My worry is the amount of time it takes for a tree to grow to a decent size, do they have enough wherever to not end up chopping down a bunch of the old ones before they can use the new trees?

Yes.  It is a fact that America has more trees now than we ever have.

Hmm... that is true, some of the forests around here are actually overgrown, you are supposed to be able to ride three horses shoulder-to-shoulder through a forest, but you can't in a lot of this area, but I suppose that can also be part of the beauty of it.

[a pack of wolves]

Yes.  It is a fact that America has more trees now than we ever have.

Significantly less forest land though, but admittedly nothing like the levels lost in somewhere like the UK and I think there's been a general trend of increase over the past few years.

[ViolentDove]

Planting huge monocultures of foreign trees introduces other problems, as well. Lowered species diversity, increased susceptibility to diseases/pests, possibly changing soil pH, overuse of fertiliser...

Sustainable harvesting of normal, non-plantation forests incorporating regeneration programs is much better.

Fuck. I sound like a forestry employee.

[KharBevNor]

a pack of wolves, if you went to wikipedia to look up about arable land, you will have seen the diagram that shows where this arabe land is concentrated.

Hint: not where brown people live.

[Hat]

Humans eating some meat is not unsustainable particularly if it's locally sourced

QC Music Forum: We're even that fucking indie about our meat.

[Johnny C]

Dude I said almost that exact same goddamn thing last page.

Everyone assumes that because my answers are funny they aren't relevant. I am here to tell you that I am both funny and relevant.

[Joseph]

This is another popular propaganda bullshit talking point.  The trees we currently use for paper only exist because they were planted to be harvested to make paper.

Hahaha, oh man. Visit British Columbia sometime.

That sort of thing has turned around somewhat though.  The harvest of paper these days involves more trees being planted than are cut down.  However, the huge clearcutting that took place in the not so distant past has left huge scars on the landscape which are still not going to be healed for some time.

[Johnny C]

At best that's merely replacing what we're taking, not creating new stocks from which the paper is taken.

There's a difference in there and it's subtle. It's much better that they're planting again rather than just clear-cutting, but still.

[Nodaisho]

At best that's merely replacing what we're taking, not creating new stocks from which the paper is taken.

There's a difference in there and it's subtle. It's much better that they're planting again rather than just clear-cutting, but still.

Exactly. It would take a long time to set up something other than that, but it would be good to have trees that have actually been planted to be cut, rather than just replacing them.

Call me a romantic, but I hate to think of something that has seen hundreds of years come and go getting cut down because we want something soft to wipe our asses with.

[Inlander]

It's not just a question of romanticism. In Australia at least, a very large proportion of the native animals in forests and woodlands rely on tree hollows in which to nest or take shelter. Such hollows only occur in old growth forests - i.e., forests that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. If you log in an old growth forest, even if you replant afterwards you're not actually replacing the habitat in any practical terms. This is actually a major environmental issue in Australia, especially in Tasmania - where, for the record, old growth forests are still logged to make wood chips and pulp.

[E. Spaceman]

Man, i am reading this thread at 3:30 AM while drinking some chai i got from this absurd shop which is actually owned by walmart and wearing a shirt that was probably sewn together using vietnamese childrens' shattered dreams and i was thinking about my current lifestyle and choices and I find it very frightening how much I have changed in a relatively short period of time.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

so what have we learned from this thread?

basically, everything you could ever do is completely evil; everything is bad for something, so who fucking cares?

just enjoy your short lives while you can and try to be nice to other people.

[Jackie Blue]

That is actually a good point.  Too many people focus on being nice to the environment and not on being nice to other people.  Holding a picket sign and screaming at people is emotionally retarded and the kind of mentality that drives such action, on both sides of any issue, is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

But people tend to gravitate towards "simple" solutions that make us "feel good", as pointed out in the Penn & Teller episode I linked to.

[E. Spaceman]

my outlook on life is thus: my life and your life and pretty much everybody's life is pointless. In the "large scheme of life" anything you or i  or anyone can do is insignificant. In a hundred years we'll be dead and only a handful of people will care, and they'll get over it. The entire human race or fluffy bunnies and pandas can all die and it won't really matter; but fuck the large scheme of life, I am not the world, I am not the people and while i'm here i'll try and have a good time. If i get 60 years of existance sandwhiched between two eternities of non existance then I'm not going to waste them on petty issues. We're on a ride to nowhere, come on inside. Taking that ride to nowhere, we'll take that ride. Maybe you wonder where you are, I don't care. Here is where time is on our side, take you there


We're on a road to nowhere, ha, ha
We're on a road to nowhere, ha, ha
We're on a road to nowhere, ha, ha, whoo

[KvP]

hooray nihilism!

Let's rape some nuns!

[E. Spaceman]

I'd say my beliefs (for they are beliefs and that pretty much makes me not a nihilist) are much more rooted in absurdism and situationism.

[a pack of wolves]

Really, situationism? Would you mind expanding on that, I can't see the connection myself and situationism has always made me feel like life is anything but pointless so I'm interested in how it's led you to such a different place.

[E. Spaceman]

lief is incredibly pointless, but why do you need to have a point? why is pointless bad? live your life! enjoy it! make every moment a well spent moment! why do you feel the need to justify your existance when the sad truth is that you simply exist? why do you need a point when life itself can be so rewarding?

[KvP]

I'd say my beliefs (for they are beliefs and that pretty much makes me not a nihilist) are much more rooted in absurdism and situationism.

You can see by my cold, cold stare that I was being completely serious there.

Unfortunately, I was expecting some kind of initiative to try and explain how raping people isn't something one should do in your worldview. Bah to you, sir.

[Jackie Blue]

live your life! enjoy it!

Saying that one should live one's life to maximum enjoyment is saying that the point of life is to enjoy oneself.

You can't get away from the fact that everyone believes that there is some "point" to life, in some form or other.

[E. Spaceman]

oh, i am perfectly fine with whatever you want to make with your life. What i dispute is the idea of there being "a point" to life. we'll die, it is kind of a bummer, we are alive, it is kind of awesome. Whatever you want to do with your life is utterly irrelevant, but have fun doing it, I try to have fun with mine.

[Alex C]

Absurdists don't deny that people have motivations, they just deny that there's one overarching principle of the universe from which value judgements can be said to spring. Anything beyond that is hairsplitting and personal preferences.

[E. Spaceman]

oh, i am perfectly fine with whatever you want to make with your life. What i dispute is the idea of there being "a point" to life.

[KvP]

oh, i am perfectly fine with whatever you want to make with your life. What i dispute is the idea of there being "a point" to life. we'll die, it is kind of a bummer, we are alive, it is kind of awesome. Whatever you want to do with your life is utterly irrelevant, but have fun doing it, I try to have fun with mine.

Bear with me, I don't know if you've explained this in such a way that I fully understand your ideology, but I'm going to air my sappy, bemused thoughts out here and you can point out where I'm going wrong, if I am.

I flirted with this line of thinking in high school (hedonism and egoism are mighty tempting to every teenage male), but the more I thought about it (and after a humanitarian trip to Nicaragua), the less sense it made. Is there an endless nothing before and beyond my life? Probably. But to say actions are utterly irrelevant is patently untrue and seems to be more of a resentful reaction to the complexity of the world and one's own relative powerlesness on a large scale. I won't end suffering on Earth. Not in my lifetime, not in a hundred. But suffering is a real thing, nonetheless, and I'd like to say that preventing people from kicking dogs, or their girlfriends, is something worth acting towards, and is very relevant, more relevant than, say, smoking weed and playing Halo. We can point out the relative insignificance of a particular instance of suffering in context of all suffering and time, but we wouldn't really be saying anything about it, or its importance. Honestly, I'm very tempted to write it off that kind of a worldview off as a byproduct of a sheltered, comfortable life.

[Nodaisho]

Suppose someone saves your life. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter all that much. Does that mean that you aren't going to be glad they did it? Like Pervert said, relatively insignificant, at least in the big picture, but to the person whose life was saved, quite significant, significant to his/her loved ones as well.

[Jackie Blue]

But suffering is a real thing, nonetheless, and I'd like to say that preventing people from kicking dogs, or their girlfriends, is something worth acting towards, and is very relevant, more relevant than, say, smoking weed and playing Halo

Well said, sah.

[Alex C]

But it's not any more real or inevitable than smoking weed or playing Halo either. The neutrality of the universe itself has no bearing on value judgements. It's like gravity; it's just the way things are, but that doesn't mean we can't come to our own opinions and conclusions.

[KvP]

So do you not see any meaningful difference between being a doctor or veterinarian and hotboxing all day?

I still fail to see the importance of the "neutrality of the universe". When I think about it, all I can come up with is an is/ought fallacy. I don't need to refer to the overall temperament of the cosmos to validate the idea that something is right/wrong. What would I need to do so, anyway? A heaven guaranteed for certain deeds? Karmic justice?

[E. Spaceman]

When I was a teenager I did the protests, the rallies, the self published zine, the humanitarian trips, the soup kitchen (i still do the last couple actually), the being hit by the riot police, etc, and I actually did have a sheltered and comfortable life!

I won't end suffering on Earth. Not in my lifetime, not in a hundred. But suffering is a real thing, nonetheless, and I'd like to say that preventing people from kicking dogs, or their girlfriends, is something worth acting towards

sure! i spend a considerable amount of time doing this, because i feel it is the right thing for me to do. I could be wrong though, and it is ultimately moot.

We can point out the relative insignificance of a particular instance of suffering in context of all suffering and time, but we wouldn't really be saying anything about it, or its importance.

with this bit i disagree, because i don't think that is relatively insignificant, but absolutely insignificant in this Large Scheme Of Life, like everything, and when everything is insignificant, what is left to do but what you think is right?
What you may have been missing is that right after talking about the large scheme of life there is the phrase "but fuck the large scheme of life". We are entirely powerless to affect it, so instead i turn to changing my own life, my own friends, my own environment. This is something i came to think after a particularly disastrous humanitarian trip (funny how things affect people differently) when i realised that it was hypocritical and arrogant for me to try and help "them" when "I" had so many things that needed to be changed.

[SevenPinkerton]

there is always one of these threads on a messageboard. My advice:

Don't look to anyone else for your values or beliefs. This goes for mainstream or "normal" values and ideals as well as what might be abnormal. Find what agrees with you and is right with you. (which very well be what is considered normal, considering you've been around it your whole life) but always understanding why you do what you do, always know why you choose what you choose. Don't live your life in ignorance, assuming what has existed and what does exist is good, right, or the way it should be. You'll find it's a rare occasion for that to be the case.

If you just follow that sort of advice, you shouldn't have a problem with vegetarians or with meat eaters. Just do what you feel is right and let others do the same. I'm a vegetarian, but I would never wish to impose my beliefs on someone else. I know they eat meat for the same reasons I don't. It's just their values and their beliefs and they are free to them. I hope others will do the same.

There is nothing I despise more than someone telling me I'm doing something wrong because it is not how they do it or how "everyone else does it." Anti-vegetarians are just as bad as vegetarians pushing their beliefs on folks. Neither deserve respect or acknowledgment for their immaturity.

[Alex C]

What would I need to do so, anyway? A heaven guaranteed for certain deeds? Karmic justice?

According to a lot of religions, yes, you would. Which is why many religious people believe that atheists for example are incapable of being truly morally responsible because without God how could they possibly have any meaningful standards? I don't think you need much outside help to give a shit about people or to care for others, but apparently there's a section of the population who strongly disagrees.

[Jackie Blue]

I personally believe that humanity's collective unconscious - the health of which is affected by, among other things, how we treat each other - is independant of the normal rules of space and time, so it will never "go away" and thus it does "matter".

There is something disturbing to me about the armchair nihilism of saying "Since the Universe won't last forever, there is no point to anything."  Regardless of whether it's true, the carefree way that some (typically younger) people reach and accept this conclusion is depressing to me.

It's not as bad as the trendiness of atheism, though, which SA did a surprisingly good article on recently:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/atheist-atheism.php

[Alex C]

Yeah, I'm not really a nihilist, I'm more in line with the atheist existentialists or absurdists, I suppose, although it's not like I really put all that much thought into it anymore. I just think meaning and purpose are personal creations rather than some puzzle to be solved or found in dogma.

Anyway, I'm curious as to when "a surprisingly good article" became code for "somethingawful's usual trite reductivism". I really don't see how atheism is any less defensible than nihilism. More importantly, that was boring 'cuz I think I saw the same thing on the Encylopedia dramatica ages ago.

[E. Spaceman]

I don't like atheism because i don't really like any religions

[Alex C]

I don't really buy into the "Atheism IS a religion!" argument, but I dislike the idea of dismissing out of hand the idea that there can be any existance of a god whatsoever. I just know I'm really, really skeptical of say, Odin, or the Judeo-Christian god. So I guess you could say I'm more of an agnostic, but it really does become an exercise in hairsplitting after a while.

I'm pretty certain Bokonism beats everything hands down though, so maybe I should go with that.

[Jackie Blue]

I thought the article was good because it's true and is speaking out against something that a lot of SA readers probably believe in.

It's not "trite reductivism", it's an accurate portrait of a genuine trend.

I've never met a true atheist that wasn't a complete moron.  Most "atheists" I've known that were intelligent, when pressed, admit that they're actually agnostics, since believing in nothing requires as much faith as believing in something.  Not to mention that a lot of atheists (ahem, Dawkins, ahem) are using a rejection of very specific church dogmas as a logical step in rejecting the entire idea of spirituality.

I'll let this review of a Dawkins book speak for me, since it does a much better job of what I'm getting at.