Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richard

  1. There are tonnes of those charts available which show the similarities between us and herbivores, and the differences we have with carnivores. Is the information in those tables incorrect? http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp109/sealhuntdfocanada/Animals-Humans-are-Herbivores-Not-C.jpg There are all kinds of those tables, that's just the first one I came across. Incorrect, simplified, or dishonest, yes. The information is overly generalized, and some of it is simply wrong. None of it is sourced. How can you trust a table that says the human small intestine is 10 to 11 times body length? The small intestine averages 23 feet long. You can do the math yourself. They also cherry-pick their comparisons. You could easily add the ability to digest cellulose as a criterion, but you'd never see that in one of these charts. Thanks for that information, we can bin those comparison charts in that case. I wonder where they got those numbers from? Seems ridiculous.
  2. You've done fantastically - I'd like to give you some advice on avoiding negativity or frustration: Personally, I'd recommend aiming for self-satisfaction, not to win a competition of this kind. As you said, they want you to wear fake eye lashes? Ridiculous. You should have your own aims and goals. If it wasn't for this kind of competition, would you want to wear fake lashes, or do any of the other things necessary to win? What would be your goal if these competitions didn't exist? Obviously, to improve you need to have an ability to assess your own weaknesses, otherwise those weaknesses will not be overcome. So I understand being a strong critic of yourself. But, that's different than allowing someone else to be a critic of you unfairly.
  3. Simple solution - find a vegan girl, then they'll have to put one of the salads in front of you
  4. The way I deal with this kind of situation (and by that, I mean, the fact that 99.9999% of the planet is populated by garbage) is to crawl up in a ball in the corner of my bedroom and rock backwards and forwards crying.
  5. There are tonnes of those charts available which show the similarities between us and herbivores, and the differences we have with carnivores. Is the information in those tables incorrect? http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp109/sealhuntdfocanada/Animals-Humans-are-Herbivores-Not-C.jpg There are all kinds of those tables, that's just the first one I came across. I draw the comparison with predators specifically, because these days humans do the killing. We don't have farmers waiting in the wilderness waiting for an animal to be dropped by a predator, then quickly running in and dragging it away to be processed... Humans kill the animals themselves - as a predator does. A scavenger does not kill. So to say that killing is natural, means that we should be natural killers, which we are not. I wouldn't disagree that it's something humans have been doing for a long time. But I would question why we ever did it. As far as I'm concerned, it was a last resort in extreme circumstances. You can get someone to drink their own urine or turn to cannibalism with enough pressure to survive, but I wouldn't call that natural as such, just grim survival. It must have been a real stretch to get humans to turn to killing animals, just using sheer logic. If there are trees and bushes around with fruit waiting to be eaten, you're going to eat that, why would you bother chasing down a chicken or a rabbit, wasting energy, and normally failing, if you can eat food that just sits there? The only reason you'd do it is if the other food sources dried up, and suddenly, you are forced to do something you are not at all suited to do. Those who turned to tool-usage had an easier time of it, because our bodies are not equipped to be hunters. And as we developed and became more intelligent and used more elaborate tools, things became even easier - basically the further we moved away from how all other animals function in the wild, the easier it became to herd, control and kill animals. Looking at how other animals in the wild deal with prey, it's clear to me that we are nothing like them. We don't chase them down on foot and kill them with our teeth and claws, we have to use advanced techniques, tools, and structures. And to most people, the sight of an animal in pain, bleeding or being killed is repulsive. If it were natural, then it would make our mouths water. Meat has to be processed for people to visually deal with it, and killing of the animals has to be done out of view - nobody wants to see it. Play a video to someone of crops being harvesed, and they will react with bored disinterest. But if you play a video of an animal being slaughtered, you will get a very different reaction.
  6. It comes down to - do you need to eat meat? In most developed societies, no you don't. In a survival situation, yes you do. If you don't have a need to do it, then it's unjustified. I would stop people killing animals where it's unnecessary, but I don't have the power, but I'd say it was wrong for them to do so.
  7. I can understand (although can't relate to) being more horrified by the treatment of animals than the killing of them, but I would say that the statement "humans are animals and can eat other animals" is unethical. Either you're saying that because we can do it, that it means it's okay (and thus any action we can do is also fair game, such as robbery, rape etc). Or you're saying that it's natural for humans to eat animals - but that's untrue, as you can see when you compare a human to other predators, and compare a human to herbivores. We have so much in common with herbivores, and pretty much nothing in common with a predator. What animals are we supposed to be able to kill naturally, and eat raw? It is true that we are now able to eat animals, but our environment is far from "natural". And even in the event that something is "natural" it does not mean that it is ethical anyway. To decide what you should and shouldn't do by looking at how other animals behave is a sure way to live like a savage and commit all kinds of crimes. So basically there is no reason to defend meat-eating, apart from in a survival situation where somehow there are animals surviving from plants, yet a human has to eat the animal, not the plant. A pretty rare situation indeed, but it does happen.
  8. Great, glad you've got some spare time to enjoy these kind of things man
  9. Cool, I like the first vid, nice to see some down-to-earth hip hop with a positive message. Good stuff
  10. Yeah there is more than one stereotype to beat regarding veganism. This picture is battling the stereotype that vegan food is boring, so the last shot is not about health, rather, it is fun food
  11. There's a difference between being sure of yourself, and wanting to get in an argument. I know that veganism is a good thing, but to me it's a label, not what I "am". In reality, there's just a list of things that I'm against, and that can loosely be termed as veganism, in a simplistic way. If someone asks me if I am vegan, then for simplicity, I will say yes. But on the other hand, if someone says "will you eat this?" and I say "no" and they say "why?", I will say "because it's got X in it". I don't take the opportunity to say "because I am vegan" - that's not why in fact, it's just a label. To say "I don't do this because I am vegan", is like putting myself as part of a group, and then that person reacts, judging you on everything they think of vegans. There's no need to take that leap, and I wait as long as possible for another reason: If someone gets to know you before they know you're vegan, they often have a better view of you because they have not had their view clouded by their preconceptions. Then once they eventually do find out, they already think you're a cool person, and veganism is then linked with you, rather than you being linked with veganism. So veganism looks better because of it. It isn't about being apologetic, it's realistic. People on the whole don't understand veganism, and even have a problem with it (ridiculous). But that's where we're at at the moment. Confrontation and pride doesn't get through to many people in my experience.
  12. It's the negative connotations that have built up for one reason or another. If everyone thought of veganism like I do, I wouldn't have a problem with the word. But it's got problems associated with it, so I don't use it unless it's just the easiest way to put it
  13. Yeah, do it bit by bit if he's got a strange reaction to something. I assume that when he tries a vegan or vegetarian dish, it's not just the same food as he would have been eating, except with no meat / dairy? Because that could be the first thing to try - just have him eat exactly what he normally eats, but without the animal products. That way there is literally no way it can be anything he is eating. Then you can introduce new foods one by one and see what it is causing this.
  14. Maybe you can assess things without using moralistic or ethical language such as "right" and "wrong". Instead just talk about the level of damage delivered onto a victim. That can't be argued. So in a country where there is no ethics or morality, you could still take someone to court and say "they caused this much damage" or "they stole this much money". You can quantify the crime without saying it is wrong. From there you've got two options - either this isn't what a moral anti-realist would like, or it is. If it is what they'd like, then the rules can still be expanded to animals. If it isn't what they'd like, then what kind of legal system would they like? If you truly believe there is no such thing as right or wrong, how can you even have a trial? Surely such people would say that there should still be a legal system, and if so, on what grounds, and how does it function? I believe that whatever the system, it can still be expanded to incorporate animals. But at a fundamental level, I just do not believe what a moral anti-realist is saying from the start, it seems just a cop out, a way to not worry or bother with ethics, rather than a genuine belief that they don't exist
  15. But they're still just absolutes to you, not universally. In another culture, it might be fine to kill other people for sport. Their absolutes are different from yours. And there's nothing to objectively say that your "absolutes" are more correct than theirs. You _feel_ that they are, but your feelings don't matter. Again, it all reduces to self-interest, which is meaningless from an objective standpoint. This really is all semantics, though, since we live by essentially the same ethical code. We just disagree about how we got to it. Again, if you talk to someone who thinks it's okay to kill for sport, you can start with if they think they think it would be okay for them to be killed for sport, and go from there. I think theoerically there is a perfect way to behave, one which could not be questioned or argued against. I seek to make my set of ethics as perfect as they can be, but I know that there are things I haven't considered at this point in time, so my personal set of ethics is most likely not perfect yet. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a perfect set of ethics
  16. As I said, if they have a crumb of empathy, you can work from there and apply logic. You find something you both agree on, and then expand from there and apply it rationally to everything else. The only time this doesn't work is when someone lacks that crumb of empathy. But if you can at least get someone to say "Yeah it's wrong to hang a dog by a tree and set it on fire for fun and film it" - then you're away. When I say that something depends on circumstances, I mean that per circumstance there is a definite right and wrong, so it is still definitive, you can still make a list of rules, that always apply and do not change. For instance, if you say "You must stop at a red light", you can also say "If in an emergency, or if the red light is malfunctioning and hasn't changed to green in 5 minutes, you can drive through", and that is still a consistent set of rules, it's just analyzing everything intelligently rather than giving just a blanket statement "stop at red lights", which won't apply all the time. You have to have an explanation of when something is right and wrong, otherwise your list is simplistic and untrue. For instance "It is wrong to kill", if taken to an absolute degree, then you can't take a wild swing with a baseball bat at the back of the head of someone who is raping your mum. To me, that's reasonable, and if it kills them, too bad. So in that instance, I would not say someone is wrong to do it. But, you can apply "it's wrong to kill..." with other stipulations, and they are absolutes. I don't agree with relativism, which means that each person is allowed their own set of rules. To me, there is one set of rules.
  17. How do you distinguish morals and ethics? I tend to just use the word "ethics", because I guess there is some kind of social or religious implication with "moral"... so I just say "ethics", as in "what is right and wrong", rather than what is a "sin because it says so in this book". I would say that if someone does not consider anything to be wrong, then that person has a mental problem. I personally believe there are ethical absolutes, but they're not simple and it does depend on individual circumstances. But even so, you can say for any given situation, "this is right or wrong", and back it up with evidence. If you can't back it up with evidence, then I don't see why it should be given any respect. "Homosexuals should be killed, that's just my opinion" - that's where it leads, because if you don't have to back it up, and if you automatically have respect just because it's your opinion, then you can say whatever you like, and ridiculous statements like that get made. Whereas, what I'm saying is, if someone comes out with some crap like that, you can say "where's your evidence?" and then discount their opinion when they don't have a logical explanation. Otherwise you're forced into respecting and accepting extremist and clearly unfair views
  18. I've come across this kind of thing before, and always it's just been theoretical. When it actually comes down to it, they are not so callous as they maintain, and they really do have a sense of right and wrong which can be applied to all situations. It's just that they find it easy to say that they don't have a moral compass, to get out of things like veganism or caring about things that would complicate their life. Normally these things (like people starving or otherwise dying in other countries, animal abuse etc) are not directly witnessed by the person, so it's easy to dismiss them and say that there are no moral absolutes and all that. But if you show them a video of an animal being abused or someone being tortured or raped etc, they will not blankly stare at it and say "Yes there is nothing wrong with this". Especially if you do this when you're not in the middle of a debate like this, you can catch them unawares, and make them say something which destroys their whole point of view. But if someone genuinely cannot see that anything is ethically wrong on principle, if they went to a psychiatrist, they would be diagnosed as having a mental problem. To me, that's how it works, it's not a viable philosophical notion, it's a mental condition, the inability to feel empathy
  19. Yeah I can see that. But this guy said that he will eat animals. Whether or not he feels guilty or sad (not stated), he is still doing it. The other reason why I don't agree with this is that I believe that ethics can actually be argued from a logical point of view, but it requires compassion. You can argue that compassion doesn't fall into the realms of logic or whatever I suppose. But all you need is even a drop of compassion, and you can analyze the ethical value of any action. For instance, at the very basic level, you can say: "I don't want people to murder me, so I will assume that others don't want to be murdered, so I won't murder other people" "I don't want people to steal from me, so I assume others don't want to be stolen from, so I won't steal" and so on. You just transfer your own feelings onto others, and treat them with respect. It is logical, it's not plucked out of thin air or random. But, if you lack even that tiny drop of compassion to start with (sociopath), then of course this chain of compassionate thinking, extending to animals, will not even exist at all. My point is that if you do feel even this small amount of compassion, a willingness to be "nice", you can see a very logical set of rules. I believe that there can be different ideas on how to create a "perfect society", or "perfect set of rules", but in terms of what is actually right and wrong, I believe it can be proven, but it does take a willingness to be good or nice.
  20. That kind of thing is total bullshit, what you're dealing with is either a liar or something along the lines of a sociopath. If what he's saying is true, then outside society, he would say there is nothing "wrong" with anything you do. In a theoretical situation where there is just you and one other person, he's saying it's okay to kill, rape or torture that person because there is no "greater good", and there is no right or wrong, so go nuts. If that's the case, what you've got there is someone who just does not give a shit about other people besides himself. The alternative is that he's lying because he can't be bothered to address veganism in a real way If what he's saying is true, he would feel no emotional connection with victims of crimes. For 99.9% of people, when they hear of a murder, rape, torture or even theft, it touches them and makes them feel that it is wrong, there is anger, frustration etc. If he's saying that the only reason we say these things are "wrong" is because we wouldn't want them to happen to us, then all we would feel is either fear (if we were in a position to be next in line), or feel nothing if it is unrelated to us. That's simply not true though
  21. Thanks for checking out, I laughed a lot when I made it, hahawr
  22. Hello, it sure is good to be here today, so I thought I'd go ahead and share this happy little video that I made. And while there are no dirty words used, I'm sure you'll be able to understand what it is I'm trying to say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAX-XTNuCFg
  23. Might do some stuff at home today, but I think I mainly want to rest. Food: Protein smoothie - 3 bananas, protein powder, cocoa 2 sausages, burger Dried Pineapple 6 vegan prawns Protein smoothie - 3 bananas, protein powder, cocoa Potato curry with TVP, onion and red pepper Protein shake Smoked tofu
  • Create New...