Unsolicited Advice Thread

[Infant]

I don't see how that's of any relevance. Maybe elaborate

We're talking about the meaning of our actions, the morality thereof.

From what I've seen, understanding anything is enhanced by understanding where it comes from. This includes lifestyles like meat eating and veganism.

So i encourage you to look into how/why anything comes into existence, to help gain better understanding of the morality of choices. From a philosophical stand point

 

[YowYan]

We're talking about the meaning of our actions, the morality thereof.

From what I've seen, understanding anything is enhanced by understanding where it comes from. This includes lifestyles like meat eating and veganism.

So i encourage you to look into how/why anything comes into existence, to help gain better understanding of the morality of choices. From a philosophical stand point

It's still way to vague to reply to.

Are you trying to say that eating meat comes from necessity? Which isn't the case for most people on earth lest you're an eskimo.

 

[salamander uchiha]

If you look at the earth as a living organism, (which it is obv) you could see every human being as a cancer cell.
Neutralize this fact for yourself by diving into permaculture and becoming an ethical vegan.

That means eating anything on the living organism makes one a cancer, not just eating meat. If anything one could argue humans eating animals is cancer eating cancer, so..

 

[YowYan]

That means eating anything on the living organism makes one a cancer, not just eating meat. If anything one could argue humans eating animals is cancer eating cancer, so..

That makes no sense.

If the human race would vanish from the earth at once, literally every other species left behind would thrive, including the earth itself.

If one other species other than humans would disappear, lets say; bees.. That would have serious repercussions for the ecosystem. So, what are you really saying?

 

[salamander uchiha]

That makes no sense.

If the human race would vanish from the earth at once, literally every other species left behind would thrive, including the earth itself.

If one other species other than humans would disappear, lets say; bees.. That would have serious repercussions for the ecosystem. So, what are you really saying?

Why doesn't it make sense, the earth has had many species that have come and gone they're all clearly cancer under your example. What exempts modern species from teh cycle of cancers

 

[YowYan]

Why doesn't it make sense, the earth has had many species that have come and gone they're all clearly cancer under your example. What exempts modern species from teh cycle of cancers

Not under my example, you just seem to have a hard time grasping the point.

A cluster of cancer cells eventually kills the host. It spreads and attacks the host.. Humans spread and lay waste to the host i.e. the earth. Name one other species that degrade the state of the organism/earth as much as we do? The answer is none. We are unique in that way.

Back to the main point; Permaculture and veganism are two of the biggest solutions as to making the earth a worthwhile place to be.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Not under my example, you just seem to have a hard time grasping the point.

A cluster of cancer cells eventually kills the host. It spreads and attacks the host.. Humans spread and lay waste to the host i.e. the earth. Name one other species that degrade the state of the organism/earth as much as we do? The answer is none. We are unique in that way.

Back to the main point; Permaculture and veganism are two of the biggest solutions as to making the earth a worthwhile place to be.

You're example is slightly flawed, since all species preceding us that don't exist today would be considered cancers, otherwise they would exist.

Animals that are extinct didn't just one day decide let's up and die, they were wiped out. The example is translatable to all species that exist.

Degradation still takes place under other species, you're argument seems to be we do it faster than others, yet that doesn't exempt the others from the example.

Permaculture is sensible, veganism not really. Maybe humans need to cut back on excessive meat consumption, although they would be doing you a favour by killing themselves off faster and eliminating the cancer, no?

 

[Premfection]

Write a journal to keep track of and express your thoughts and document daily adventures

 

[YowYan]

You're example is slightly flawed, since all species preceding us that don't exist today would be considered cancers, otherwise they would exist.

Animals that are extinct didn't just one day decide let's up and die, they were wiped out. The example is translatable to all species that exist.

Degradation still takes place under other species, you're argument seems to be we do it faster than others, yet that doesn't exempt the others from the example.

Permaculture is sensible, veganism not really. Maybe humans need to cut back on excessive meat consumption, although they would be doing you a favour by killing themselves off faster and eliminating the cancer, no?

No, it's not flawed. Again, you just seem to have a hard time understanding.

Regardless of an animal species being wiped out or not (which is a specialty of ours, animal agriculture being one of the leading reasons), their presence would not equal the level of destruction that we achieved. You cannot name one species from the animal kingdom that have been responsible for, lets say; deforestation. If you use your imagination and think of a forest as a lung..they somewhat look alike

Spoiler: click here

You must be registered to see images

With this image, comparing mankind to lung cancer shouldn't be as much of a stretch to you.

Permaculture is sensible and so is Veganism. If everyone in the U.S. would turn vegan overnight, world famine would've been solved twice over and in terms of the emission issue, it'd be equal to around 60 million cars being taken off the road.

Animal liberation should be the number one motivation but for the self-centric ignoramuses out there (most of us)
Their health, the environment, biodiversity, etc should take their interest instead.

 

[salamander uchiha]

No, it's not flawed. Again, you just seem to have a hard time understanding.

I don't have a hard time understanding, it's that if a principle is general it has universal application, if it's specific it has a limited application.

Regardless of an animal species being wiped out or not (which is a specialty of ours, animal agriculture being one of the leading reasons), their presence would not equal the level of destruction that we achieved. You cannot name one species from the animal kingdom that have been responsible for, lets say; deforestation. If you use your imagination and think of a forest as a lung..they somewhat look alike

Spoiler: click here

You must be registered to see images

We weren't the ones that wiped out countless species or creatures that came before we modernised. The lung similitude is a bit of a joke, right? How many types of trees are there out there that don't look like lungs. Also the lungs and trees have opposing functions.

With this image, comparing mankind to lung cancer shouldn't be as much of a stretch to you.

It is, since both serve different functions.

Permaculture is sensible and so is Veganism. If everyone in the U.S. would turn vegan overnight, world famine would've been solved twice over and in terms of the emission issue, it'd be equal to around 60 million cars being taken off the road.

Nah veganism isn't sensible. I can't kill tens of thousands of living plants a year to feed myself. I would rather stick to 52 or so chickens a year. The world isn't in famine, we just waste food and throw it away while other countries suffer from inefficient farming practises and deforestation.

Animal liberation should be the number one motivation but for the self-centric ignoramuses out there (most of us)
Their health, the environment, biodiversity, etc should take their interest instead.

We are liberating them, by letting become one with us, fuel us, then releasing them back into the great ocean of fertiliser to continue the cycle.

Ftr, I'm all for planting life sustaining trees, allowing a culture to form. I'm also for sustainable practices, but the approach you're suggesting is meh:/ Btw, I take it you're a vegan?

@Astrovio @Naruto X Hunter your thoughts?

 

[Avaitto]

We are liberating them, by letting become one with us, fuel us, then releasing them back into the great ocean of fertiliser to continue the cycle.

Do the same for animals, let them eat you

 

[salamander uchiha]

Do the same for animals, let them eat you

The apex predator doesn't let the lessers dominate it, do you beta kun

Do you think we should sacrifice humans to the animal population, so they can repopulate the earth

 

[YowYan]

@Astrovio @Naruto X Hunter your thoughts?

I remember now how low the level of intellect on this forum was and apparently, still is. (with exception of a couple oldgens)

I can't kill tens of thousands of living plants a year to feed myself

I've heard this argument so many times before, it's tiresome.

Comparing plants to sentient animals with central nervous systems, capable of experience their surroudings and all emotions.

A plant is alive, granted, and it responds to stimuli. Yet, so does a breathalizer and other tools.

 

[Naruto X Hunter]

I don't have a hard time understanding, it's that if a principle is general it has universal application, if it's specific it has a limited application.



We weren't the ones that wiped out countless species or creatures that came before we modernised. The lung similitude is a bit of a joke, right? How many types of trees are there out there that don't look like lungs. Also the lungs and trees have opposing functions.



It is, since both serve different functions.



Nah veganism isn't sensible. I can't kill tens of thousands of living plants a year to feed myself. I would rather stick to 52 or so chickens a year. The world isn't in famine, we just waste food and throw it away while other countries suffer from inefficient farming practises and deforestation.



We are liberating them, by letting become one with us, fuel us, then releasing them back into the great ocean of fertiliser to continue the cycle.

Ftr, I'm all for planting life sustaining trees, allowing a culture to form. I'm also for sustainable practices, but the approach you're suggesting is meh:/ Btw, I take it you're a vegan?

@Astrovio @Naruto X Hunter your thoughts?

I'm not interested in this mumbo jumbo.

 

[Avaitto]

The apex predator doesn't let the lessers dominate it, do you beta kun

Do you think we should sacrifice humans to the animal population, so they can repopulate the earth

The pray also doesn't want the apex predator to eat it, you think because you have the power you are morally right?

No, and the opposite is wrong, we shouldn't sacrifice animals when we have the power to not need to do it.

 

[salamander uchiha]

I remember now how low the level of intellect on this forum was and apparently, still is. (with exception of a couple oldgens)

Come now, the ad hominem doesn't serve you well.

I've heard this argument so many times before, it's tiresome.

Comparing plants to sentient animals with central nervous systems, capable of experience their surroudings and all emotions.

A plant is alive, granted, and it responds to stimuli. Yet, so does a breathalizer and other tools.

Nope the plant has a nucleus like all cellular structures and that governs it to a degree, the simultude between that and a breathalizer is disrespectful to plant kind.

I'm not interested in this mumbo jumbo.

It's a simple question, do you think humans should stop eating animals?

The pray also doesn't want the apex predator to eat it, you think because you have the power you are morally right?

No, and the opposite is wrong, we shouldn't sacrifice animals when we have the power to not need to do it.

Since when does the apex predator adhere to the whims of the lesser (prey)? I suppose of animals gained human like ability one could argue equivalence. Until they do they are like cattle for the predator.

So do you eat meat? And I don't mean sausages (no Sasuke jokes).

 

[Avaitto]

Come now, the ad hominem doesn't serve you well.




Nope the plant has a nucleus like all cellular structures and that governs it to a degree, the simultude between that and a breathalizer is disrespectful to plant kind.



It's a simple question, do you think humans should stop eating animals?



Since when does the apex predator adhere to the whims of the lesser (prey)? I suppose of animals gained human like ability one could argue equivalence. Until they do they are like cattle for the predator.

So do you eat meat? And I don't mean sausages (no Sasuke jokes).

The apex predator doesn't need to eat the lesser if it has the option, just like pet cats don't eat pet mice.

I eat meat but I know it's wrong, I just don't think I'm a morally superior predator and doing service to animals like you do.

 

[Naruto X Hunter]

It's a simple question, do you think humans should stop eating animals?

No.

 

[YowYan]

Nope the plant has a nucleus like all cellular structures and that governs it to a degree, the simultude between that and a breathalizer is disrespectful to plant kind.

You forgot to address the most relevant part. Sentience.

And it isn't the first or second time you fail to grasp the point.
There is an obvious difference yet the comparison remains steadfast in itself. A breathalyzer reacts to stimuli, so do does the mimosa pudica plant. (I have it at home) When touched, its leaves close immediately due to turgor pressure. Turgor pressure is the amount of water pressure in the cell that is pushing up against the cell wall. You could look up the biochemical details later.

 

[salamander uchiha]

The apex predator doesn't need to eat the lesser if it has the option, just like pet cats don't eat pet mice.

I eat meat but I know it's wrong, I just don't think I'm a morally superior predator and doing service to animals like you do.

No, the cat will play with the mouse and kill it. And yes we are doing a favour to it, by eating it and letting it join the cycle of life. It too is doing us a favour by sustaining us, it's called mutual respect. Then we defecate and let it join the world of fertilizer, so the cycle of life can continue.

No.

That's what I like to hear.

You forgot to address the most relevant part. Sentience.

And it isn't the first or second time you fail to grasp the point.
There is an obvious difference yet the comparison remains steadfast in itself. A breathalyzer reacts to stimuli, so do does the mimosa pudica plant. (I have it at home) When touched, its leaves close immediately due to turgor pressure. Turgor pressure is the amount of water pressure in the cell that is pushing up against the cell wall. You could look up the biochemical details later.

Sentience isn't a deciding factor, unless they display human like ability, intelligence and ingenuity.

All things react to stimuli even humans, that's why the example is flawed. Biological matter has it's own DNA, cell structures, which determine how it reacts to us. In fact some would argue plants do the opposite to us (convert carbon dioxide to oxygen) and keep us alive, therefore we should consume animals since they are a competitor on the planet.