Rayman Pirate-Community

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:15 am Since quote is long I cut that part as you mentioned moral argument on the bases of "nature is good"
However, this doesn't seem to be the most popular moral base. It's mostly "well being" that is aimed for.

It only makes sense to aim for the well-being in the animals that we farm, because we're the ones condemning them to be slaughtered. If we aimed for well-being in all animals, like I mentioned with the deer and the lion it's practically impossible to interfere in a positive way. We can't stop animals from causing pain and suffering to other animals without ourselves causing the pain and suffering (though I'm sure this isn't quite what you were suggesting). The best we can do is try to preserve and not interfere, to let nature run its course without pollution, habitat destruction and global warming causing imbalances in the ecosystem.

Farm animals on the other hand would not exist were it not for us. In a sense they're not natural, at least the ones bred for the purpose of eating. They don't have to worry about natural predators nor do they have to forage for food, so I don't think the same argument can be made for them. The least we can do is make sure they have a good quality of life. I don't think there's a clear cut answer to whether slaughtering a free-range animal is wrong, and I also think a distinction has to be made between eating meat out of necessity and eating meat simply because you enjoy it. If your only practical source of a balanced diet is from animals then I don't think you can make a good moral case against eating those animals, seeing as the animals in question would treat their pray the same way. On the other hand when it comes to eating meat just because you enjoy it, I think there's certainly a solid case for why that's morally wrong.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:02 am

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:15 am Since quote is long I cut that part as you mentioned moral argument on the bases of "nature is good"
However, this doesn't seem to be the most popular moral base. It's mostly "well being" that is aimed for.

It only makes sense to aim for the well-being in the animals that we farm, because we're the ones condemning them to be slaughtered. If we aimed for well-being in all animals, like I mentioned with the deer and the lion it's practically impossible to interfere in a positive way. We can't stop animals from causing pain and suffering to other animals without ourselves causing the pain and suffering (though I'm sure this isn't quite what you were suggesting). The best we can do is try to preserve and not interfere, to let nature run its course without pollution, habitat destruction and global warming causing imbalances in the ecosystem.

Farm animals on the other hand would not exist were it not for us. In a sense they're not natural, at least the ones bred for the purpose of eating. They don't have to worry about natural predators nor do they have to forage for food, so I don't think the same argument can be made for them. The least we can do is make sure they have a good quality of life. I don't think there's a clear cut answer to whether slaughtering a free-range animal is wrong, and I also think a distinction has to be made between eating meat out of necessity and eating meat simply because you enjoy it. If your only practical source of a balanced diet is from animals then I don't think you can make a good moral case against eating those animals, seeing as the animals in question would treat their pray the same way. On the other hand when it comes to eating meat just because you enjoy it, I think there's certainly a solid case for why that's morally wrong.

few things here:
Yeah it's not about us going into nature and stopping all kinds of harm but reducing the harm we do.
We may want to go one step further but we know we can reduce harm by not eating them and we can live well without. Can't say the same if we try to interfere. looks paradoxical to do.

Also, a central part of well being morals is the "being" part You can't *be" if you are dead so killing animals on a systematic farm level is just wrong regardless of them being happy before they get numb from medication and get slaughtered.

Even if we just made farm animals, we don't have a right to disregard well-being here without justification. Which we don't have.

We can just let them live till they die from natural reasons we can't do much about like age or illness. Idk why we can't just attempt to eat those that died in ways we didn't literally caused.

And I mentioned necessity before so I will repeat that since you joined later x3
In a case of necessity it's hard to say it's immoral. It's also not really possible to say it's immoral if you eat an animal that died in an accident.

In case of me, I need certain things fish has due to health reasons. That is an unlucky situation for me.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:17 am Also, a central part of well being morals is the "being" part You can't *be" if you are dead so killing animals on a systematic farm level is just wrong regardless of them being happy before they get numb from medication and get slaughtered.

These animals wouldn't "be" if farmers didn't breed them in the first place. What if keeping a farm animal for slaughter means it would have a happier, longer life and a more painless death than if it were wild? If you don't eat it, something else likely will.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:17 am We can just let them live till they die from natural reasons we can't do much about like age or illness. Idk why we can't just attempt to eat those that died in ways we didn't literally caused.

I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting we send groups of people out to look for dead animals we can eat? Because not only does that sound incredibly unhygienic and impractical, the number of edible dead animals you would find would be impractically small. An animal has to be prepared for eating immediately after it has died otherwise the body will decay. Most animals die either from some condition or disease (making them inedible) or from being killed by a predator. If we find a pig that's been killed by a predator it most likely had a terrifying painful death, whereas we have the ability to kill animals painlessly - so why wait around for pigs to be hunted by predators? And what gives animals the right to kill other animals for food but not us? Why of all creatures should we avoid eating meat when we have no problem with other creatures eating each other?

Personally I don't think farming is immoral, if you look after your animals. At least you're taking better care of them than a predator would. I think factory farming is deeply immoral because the animals live lives of constant pain and suffering, and would undoubtedly be better off in the wild.

<drunk post ahead>

Ugh yeah this is something I don't like even as someone who eats eggs - mass culling of male chicks, or sliding them on a conveyor belt to get shredded. Sadly the only way around this is to play god with chromosomes if we really want to make sure no males are born in the first place.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:13 pm

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:17 am Also, a central part of well being morals is the "being" part You can't *be" if you are dead so killing animals on a systematic farm level is just wrong regardless of them being happy before they get numb from medication and get slaughtered.

These animals wouldn't "be" if farmers didn't breed them in the first place. What if keeping a farm animal for slaughter means it would have a happier, longer life and a more painless death than if it were wild? If you don't eat it, something else likely will.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:17 am We can just let them live till they die from natural reasons we can't do much about like age or illness. Idk why we can't just attempt to eat those that died in ways we didn't literally caused.

I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting we send groups of people out to look for dead animals we can eat? Because not only does that sound incredibly unhygienic and impractical, the number of edible dead animals you would find would be impractically small. An animal has to be prepared for eating immediately after it has died otherwise the body will decay. Most animals die either from some condition or disease (making them inedible) or from being killed by a predator. If we find a pig that's been killed by a predator it most likely had a terrifying painful death, whereas we have the ability to kill animals painlessly - so why wait around for pigs to be hunted by predators? And what gives animals the right to kill other animals for food but not us? Why of all creatures should we avoid eating meat when we have no problem with other creatures eating each other?

Personally I don't think farming is immoral, if you look after your animals. At least you're taking better care of them than a predator would. I think factory farming is deeply immoral because the animals live lives of constant pain and suffering, and would undoubtedly be better off in the wild.

"These animals wouldn't "be" if farmers didn't breed them in the first place. What if keeping a farm animal for slaughter means it would have a happier, longer life and a more painless death than if it were wild? If you don't eat it, something else likely will."

we shouldn't create something just to slaughter it.
If you kill it, you kill it. You violated principal of well-being. period.
You shouldn't have farmed it then.
You don't get to end your children's life as you desire when you see time fit. We support them throughout. like pets also swlame thing.

What I suggest wasn't looking for it but if you have an aninal farm that takes care of them nicely, why not just let them live till death occurs through something like age? or they had an accident like idk, broke a leg so bad that it died (Sorry can't think of a good example).

In both of these we could just pick up that animal and process it.
That's fine by me.

the part where you say why are they allowed not zs is shifting the topic completely. It's about OUR morals. that example you gave goes in direction of tu quo que fallacy or however to write it.

We know it would violate our reasonings (if you usecwell being) to kill these. We shouldn't get a pass and just be ok with contradicting ourselves.

And I mentioned that ideally we would have a world absent of suffering but I mentioned how attempting to stop Predators hurting would likely be a paradoxical situation currently where stopping them would cause harm to predators.

I don't want to go into all the ideas here as we should look at us and think of how we can reduce unnecessary harm and unnecessary killing of life.

Imagine your life has a deathline date where you get taken care for but at one point in life, no matter what, you get killed. You can't enjoy life anymore. You can't *be well* anymore. You would say this violates well being. So does it violate it with animals you farm. Why not just take care of them to... take care of them?
because you want to eat them not take care. But why not then create a less suffering causing structure which reduces harm and maybe allows you to "farm" animals without the killing on purpose part. Huh?

I mean there can be much said here and I don't feel like going into it more. Talk to proper representatives of veganism as a philosophy not me who agrees that arguments against it just don't stand up to scrutiny.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:00 pm the part where you say why are they allowed not zs is shifting the topic completely. It's about OUR morals. that example you gave goes in direction of tu quo que fallacy or however to write it.

I have to disagree with you there. The fact that other animals eat other animals is IMO the crux of the whole issue. Just because we are humans, it doesn't make us non-animal. We are effectively just as different to slugs as slugs are to birds - we're just another species in the kingdom of life. There's nothing really that sets us apart from other animals (although I suppose you might disagree if you are a spiritual person). We are more intelligent, but there are many other intelligent animals - Kanzi the bonobo is a prime example of how intelligent other animals can be. He can chat with people!

Our morals are not particularly special either. Any animal that takes care of its offspring has something similar to the morals we have, although a lot simpler.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:00 pm We know it would violate our reasonings (if you usecwell being) to kill these. We shouldn't get a pass and just be ok with contradicting ourselves.

I disagree with the idea that everything should have the best possible "well-being", or at least disagree with what you mean by "well-being". Are you suggesting that if it where possible to plug every living creature into a matrix-like simulation of a perfect paradise, that it would be a good idea? Don't you think nature should be left alone like it has been for the many millions of years we were not around, complete with all of its beauty and brutality? Making the world pain-free for all life is not our responsibility, it's just our responsibility to undo the damage we cause.

Before us humans were as advanced as we are today, we hunted for animals just like other animals do. We were natural predators. You can't really say they're doing anything immoral by hunting for food. There are still primitive tribes around the world that hunt animals to eat - are they being immoral? I very much don't think so. At what point does our nature become immoral? It's not so black-and-white as "humans shouldn't kill anything". Hopefully we can agree that if a lion is just about to eat your family and you have a gun, shooting it would be the morally informed choice.

Of course factory farming and giving farm animals shitty lives is one extreme (definitely immoral), and primitive tribes hunting for animals is on the other extreme (definitely not immoral), but I certainly believe there is an acceptable middle ground of properly looking after the animals you're farming.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:00 pm What I suggest wasn't looking for it but if you have an aninal farm that takes care of them nicely, why not just let them live till death occurs through something like age? or they had an accident like idk, broke a leg so bad that it died (Sorry can't think of a good example).

I can tell you that a pig can be killed in a much more humane way than waiting for it to die from having broken its leg. Usually if someone found something like that on a farm they'd kill it to put it out of its mystery.
And a farm animal that has died of old age is almost certainly unfit for eating. You have to kill and butcher animals in a controlled way in order to keep it hygienic and edible.

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:00 pm Imagine your life has a deathline date where you get taken care for but at one point in life, no matter what, you get killed. You can't enjoy life anymore. You can't *be well* anymore. You would say this violates well being. So does it violate it with animals you farm. Why not just take care of them to... take care of them?
because you want to eat them not take care. But why not then create a less suffering causing structure which reduces harm and maybe allows you to "farm" animals without the killing on purpose part. Huh?

I was giving credit to the intelligence of some animals, but farm animals aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept of impending doom. Humane farms give their animals happy lives and kill them instantly and painlessly with a bolt gun. If you treat a farm animal well it can have a more fulfilling life than it would in the wild.
And I'm sure if there was a way of doing what you described, someone would have come up with it by now. In reality it's just not practical to pull off the kind of thing you're imagining. And I don't really see why you have a problem with intentionally killing something but not with it dying naturally, even if the natural death is more painful.

Edit:

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:00 pm I mean there can be much said here and I don't feel like going into it more. Talk to proper representatives of veganism as a philosophy not me who agrees that arguments against it just don't stand up to scrutiny.

Sorry I actually missed this sentence when I started writing my post

This is my last response on this topic as you missed my closing statement so you wrote things which should encourage further engagement rather than closing thoughts. all good.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amThe fact that other animals eat other animals is IMO the crux of the whole issue. Just because we are humans, it doesn't make us non-animal. We are effectively just as different to slugs as slugs.

I would appreciate if you read closely. This wasn't ever what I said. Awe are animals but we gave ourselves morals and rules. early on I said how you can eat meat just fine without this moral set.

It's only wrong if you use well-being as a reason(and others that want to have a general protection of beings and their well-being)

So your objection here misses my point completely.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amI disagree with the idea that everything should have the best possible "well-being", or at least disagree with what you mean by "well-being". Are you suggesting that if it where possible to plug every living creature into a matrix-like simulation of a perfect paradise, that it would be a good idea? Don't you think nature should be left alone like it has been for the many millions of years we were not around, complete with all of its beauty and brutality? Making the world pain-free for all life is not our responsibility, it's just our responsibility to undo the damage we cause.

It really doesn't matter what nature wants. I myself don't really use the most modern version of well-being because it leads to duties like what you see as issues.
If well-being is your goal, allowing suffering even though you can have non painful solutions is a violation of your moral duties. Period. Just don't use this moral frame work if you disagree with it. Morals are subjective... soooo

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amWe were natural predators. You can't really say they're doing anything immoral by hunting for food.

yes I can as this is appeal to nature which is 100% invalid. We humans in western countries often don't need this source. I said before hiw necessary consumption is different as it's 1 well-being vs another Which is a known issue that I'm not going to try to solve. It's evaluating 1 life vs another in a case where something must happen. Idk maybe this point was missed? Appeal to nature is invalid.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amHopefully we can agree that if a lion is just about to eat your family and you have a gun, shooting it would be the morally informed choice.

this is self defense and is a complete switch in topic. It was aboit food source not are you allowed to defend yourself.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amI can tell you that a pig can be killed in a much more humane way than waiting for it to die from having broken its leg. Usually if someone found something like that on a farm they'd kill it to put it out of its mystery.

apply same reasoning to humans and you see it fails.
We always attempt to recover those we take care off till we see attempting does more harm than letting them die. (I'm pro assisted suicide so you can guess the reasoning I hope).

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amAnd a farm animal that has died of old age is almost certainly unfit for eating. You have to kill and butcher animals in a controlled way in order to keep it hygienic and edible.

Well it's not my problem if people want to eat meat so desperately that likely their core morals are in conflict here?

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amI was giving credit to the intelligence of some animals, but farm animals aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept of impending doom.

wasn't my point.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amAnd I'm sure if there was a way of doing what you described, someone would have come up with it by now.

veganism and moral systems of wwll-being slowly arise in rather recent times where our structure is made for polar opposite it feels like. I'm not the first to think of it, bzt reality is far from it to execute anything like this. So no... no one could have done it by now. I mean in Germany we still have laws that disregard well-being so we are far from it.

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amAnd I don't really see why you have a problem with intentionally killing something but not with it dying naturally, even if the natural death is more painful.

I really must drop the topic as increasingly misrepresentation of my points happen. Maybe my fault for not being clear enough
I talked about things we cannot do things against. As far as I know, death by age isn't necessarily painful and seemingly peaceful to a point we want it to be how we go out.

And I said accidents for other reasons. We don't wish anyone to die from accidents but once they happened, they kinda happened ya know? Might as well be efficient and eat the animal. (I hinted at why eating humans cannot be reasoned the same but I don't want to go into it again).

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:13 amSorry I actually missed this sentence when I started writing my post

yeah all good. I hope my points here are more over clarifications and closing rather than causing further reactions which would lead to more. Feel free to make a closing statement (to me). And feel free to discuss this further. For a more in-depth explanations of sone points, Cosmic Skeptic "recently" has decided to join the discussion and I idk who else. He is just the only one in my head right now.

Alright, I'll make a few closing statements. Sorry for misrepresenting your views, I think we just disagree on a few fundamentals so I was making some incorrect assumptions. Also I have a tendancy to go slightly off topic, so in the cases where you said "that wasn't my point", that's probably just me going on a tangent because I thought it was an interesting point to make.

I believe I have a pretty comprehensive set of morals that do not conflict with meat-eating. To clarify, I despise the poor treatment of animals, but I believe you can kill an animal without affecting its quality of life in a negative way - that is, the life it had before it died. You may believe that taking an animals life just to eat it is morally wrong full stop, but I simply disagree, as long as it had a pleasant life.

I've always been against pointless harm to nature, not necessarily because we're making a living creature feel pain - a lot of simple organisms simply can't feel pain or have any capacity for thought. Certain types of worms, for example, are practically biological robots, they're like moving plants. I still disagree with the aimless destruction of these things because nature is beautiful, it's a complex web of perfectly balanced incomprehensibly complicated chemical reactions that got here without any help from an intelligent designer, and so are we. Who are we to destroy it?

But when it comes to eating other life, which is how all life has worked since life existed, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. It's not as black-and-white as that for me.

In response to this specifically:

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:33 am

Ambidextroid wrote:We were natural predators. You can't really say they're doing anything immoral by hunting for food.

yes I can as this is appeal to nature which is 100% invalid. We humans in western countries often don't need this source. I said before hiw necessary consumption is different as it's 1 well-being vs another Which is a known issue that I'm not going to try to solve. It's evaluating 1 life vs another in a case where something must happen. Idk maybe this point was missed? Appeal to nature is invalid

I was talking about our pre-human ancestors. It's not immoral for a lion to eat a deer, and it's not immoral for an ape to eat other animals. We evolved from apes, so it seems like you're saying at some point we gained the ability to use sophisticated morals and it became morally wrong to eat other animals. But we didn't just get our morals from nowhere, you get them mostly from the culture you grow up in. If you grew up in a primitive tribe in Africa, I can guarantee you wouldn't have the same morals and the same attitude to meat-eating. So it's really not fair to say primitive tribes are being immoral by hunting for food. It's a matter of perspective.

And I think saying "appeal to nature is 100% invalid" is rather naïve. We are at the end of the day products of nature, and while you might be able to overcome a lot of your natural needs and instincts, we are still animals at the end of the day, full stop. We have a lot of natural needs in order to keep us alive, and many of these involve unavoidable destruction of other animals hapitats and well-being. Even creating farmland for crops destroys the local wildlife.

Nature is brutal. That's just how it is, and there's no way of making nature completely suffering-free without it no longer being natural, which is not a cause I can support.

I know this response was more of a continuation than a final statement, but I think our outlooks are just too different to wrap up properly in a single post. Hopefully I haven't misrepresented you again, so if you don't want to continue the discussion feel free to leave it, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain points

Ambidextroid wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:00 pm

just quoting so you might get notified.
It's fine that you made some points.
I think one things to say outside of topic is that I view humans as destructive creatures that are too smart for their own good. We do more harm in less time than essentially all of history of life. Ok, the couple global catastrophic events with massive extinction were pretty bad but not gonna lie, we are a living catastrophy XD.
As for morals, yes I can judged past people and future people. I will allow them to judge me.
I do not necessarily judge insanely doctrinated ones and pressured ones (especially not those fighting for survival like our early ancestors)
But like, just one example. It was immoral to own slaves, Exodus was immoral in Bible. Back then and now. You don't need to degrade a being to an object in order to help or so (commom excuse is that slavery was a way to help).
Or discrimination stuff. I get it, some actions are indoctrinated to lower rank people. But at the very least, those people with all the power, nope you were immoral*
*in my moral system

This isn't vegan topic that's why I address it. general moral philosophy. You can judge other cultures too. The beauty of morals being subjective is there is no right or wrong, just once we
(this a hypothetical now, not talking to you directly) happenn to agree on goals, the fact I call your views immoral might cause you to care. If my goal was to eliminate all of human kind, you would love me to say yours are immoral, as that would in return mean they support humanity.

You can also have a moral system where all actions are morally good and whatnot. x3

Idk I feel like if I go this direction I might open up the topic of moral philosophy and topic of how to view humans.

Ummm um Please no, ummm um
Lizards are cute. No eat Lizards! :3

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Ummm um Please no, ummm um
Lizards are cute. No eat Lizards! :3

There's health benefits to eating lizard.

Сым wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:41 pm

ScalieDan wrote: ↑Ummm um Please no, ummm um
Lizards are cute. No eat Lizards! :3

There's health benefits to eating lizard.

Lizards are so cute, they even attracted pseudo-science! hehe.
Thankfully the article just tries to sell herbs and the Lizard stuff is just made up or are equivalent of eating any food source.

Astonishing how in their last section they reference a human who never existed.
Though I think there is a take away, in Japan Lizard pets aren't that uncommon and current oldest human (117y. Kane Tanaka) lives there. Maybe having them as a pet helps? :3