Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
WISHPIG I'M CALLING YOU OUT
THATS RIGHT I'M CALLING YOU OUT
They get their heads in such a pretty little tangle sometimes.
'ppreciate the heads-up
That's like saying well, people are all going to suffer at some point, so what's the point of advocating human rights? It's totally flawed logic.
why don't we just carpet bomb the whole area and let a few teams of guys machine-gun the survivors. They'd just suffer anyway.
than millions to be artificially bred, slaughtered and then eaten by humans.
There’s also the fact that the carbon footprint of an average vegetarian diet in the west is about a quarter that of an average meat-eating diet in the west. Vegan is even less. Being a meat-eater disproportionately damages the environment.
but outside of getting your house comprehensively insulated, turning vegetarian is the single most effective way that an individual can reduce their environmental impact.
there would be no industry for it?
marckee's right from what i remember, a lot of environmental damage comes from meat - particularly beef farming, due to the deforestation to support it, the methane involved while cows are, er, farting, and the pollution caused by transporting it often massive distances
but heck, there's an internet full of scientific reports on climate change waiting for you to read them
Do the assessments and play around with the figures. Changing from a car-driver to a public transport user to a cyclist doesn't have the same impact as not eating meat.
we can't ever give up oil. but thats for another day.
it basically denies the power structures/dichotomies that exist in western culture between (i.e man over woman, mankind over nature etc) and argues that they all from the same root of thought. In order to be a feminist you must also be ecologically conscious/conscious towards animals. "Cars and stuff" would certainly be included in the list of things we need to reasses.
I dont neccesarily agree but its an interesting position.
as I used to vigourously campaign (too vigourously)
In fact the best thing would be if everyone had a smallholding (varying in size according to scientifically estimations about food potential) alloted equally, upon which they can all survive or trade, using a fair and not middleman (or minimal) trade rate.......unfortunately that is a long way away.....in the meantime vegetarianism is a step in the right direction to help rebalance equality, obviously it is inappropriate for all peoples to be vegetarian, nomadic peoples particularly, but likewise it is inappropriate for many meat eaters to not eat insects etc.
Also, that lanugage isn't contradictory. It's called persuasive writing. How can you argue without using rhetoric? It's nigh on impossible. Stop nitpicking.
it comes down to semantics, rather than content of arguement and the game begins with point scoring, undermining another's argument on the basis of incorrect grammar.
As if incorrect grammar or semantic usage can either validate or invalidate an arguement on it's own.
It becomes a game of conversational chess, or linguistic wrestling rather than a discussion and exploration of two or more opposing view.
the INDUSTRY OF FOOD and am now a vegetarian, so perhaps not all vegetarians are as full of shit, as people who eat meat yet have not had to kill animals for the food industty seem to claim?
if they weren't being fed grain etc then (arguably) the land that was being used to grow the grain could instead be allowed to develop into an ecosystem that would allow more animals to live on than can live on with the grain being grown.
where that line of argument falls down is precisely what you're talking about: would it be for the greater good to continue farming + animal industry considering the amount of animals that would die in the transition from "animal industry" to "no animal industry".
I would say definitely not but there are some who would disagree.
Its a double edged sword as the utilitarian view gives you freedom to treat individual cases as individual cases but is less useful when dealing with things happening over a period of time/hypotheticals
( that does not contain issinglas of course ;)
"go on have another pint" I'd say, and I would continue till we agreed
Antibiotics are routinely fed antbiotics to allow them to be kept in appaling conditions thus shortining the lifespan of antibiotics that will no longer be able to save human lives, the land food and water needed to produce meat would be more efficiently used feeding people and currently drives up prices for these resources in developing countries, western apetites spreading to the rest of the world will put even more strain on resources, the amount of nitrogen waste produced is too much for land to absorb and linked to health problems of nearby people, eating meat is linked to various cancers etc
But just so you know I'm here on the sidelines in my Aloof Brigade spandex if anyone needs me. Ok?
As you were.
starts ideological trumps.
I can make my bottom say `anarcho-socialism`.
Just wait while I brew one up.
one that sits on the venn diagram overlap of feminism and vegetarianism would usually be a safe bet.
Unfortunately it's been posted at the same time as the resignation of the Witch Of Wapping, where we are all totally justified in our glee at a high-powered female's comeuppance.
I recently found out that Rebekah-kah-kah-kah Brooks is a vegan.
Despite everything that she has done, this now makes her better and morally more sound than all you meat eaters who have NEVER hacked into dead girls phones.
It also makes her a model feminist.
Hitler was a vegetarian though. He's pretty bad.
He treated his dogs really nicely.
(social change was a bit scant through the 80's and into the 90's)Poverty was made history last decade.
The war on terror was won a few months ago.
We've only got the wars on drugs, climate change, disease and famine to go and we'll all be set for a socio-capitalist utopia. WHAHEEEEEY!
Bitches aint shit but hoe's and tricks
I'M CAROL J ADAMS
trolls tend to drift into a period of hibernation, on occasion something magical happens during this period of inactivity and they emerge changed in subtle and complex ways, as an almost complete person.
Also, most of the lads criticising feminism live with their mums, so have a skewed idea of what women are likely to put up with. Many of these posters have created 'woe is me I cant get a bird' threads at some point. It is highly likely that their view of women is directly related to them not getting a bird, which in turn makes them more bitter towards women, which makes them even less likely to get kissed by anyone other than a blood relative.
i am a vegetarian and i would consider myself a feminist if wishpig would let me
And you can't get a bird.
Am i right?
You are a /funny/ wee man.
<pats on head, ruffles hair>
I CANT HELP HOW I WAS BORN - GOODNESS ME!
its probably the use of the word 'rights'
in reality there is no such thing as 'rights'
they are artificial constructs of words that try to have some legislation to enforce the presumed meaning of words.
Now I am not a linguistic logic bot, neither are you or anyone else....in fact if we encounter anyone who appears to be, we might describe them as unatural, or unfeeling, or cold, or inhuman....autism scale stuff almost.
Now if we were to subtract the logic bot element of 'rights' then we would be left with the vague emotional idea of 'live and let live' as a concept.
Now then inequality gets exagerated when a powerful exploitative element can 'ignore' other points of view and boost up the importance of its own view (falsely equating its superior power with superior right) ....we see this within the species of humans as well as interspecial.
Now I am sure you would disagree with some old attitudes that might have seen some people regarding 'hottentots' (kalahari peoples) as semi animals and therefore suitable and allowable as 'game animals' (yes its horrible)
Or naziisms example of considering some humans as 'sub humans'
but the problem is that the attitudes that you are perhaps indicating with your dismissing of other 'species rights' is dangerously similar to something that is not healthy for humans, of course you have probably drawn a very firm line in your nental morality which says that 'ALL humans are deserving of equal rights when they are innocent babies' and i am not accusing you of being a monster, but ......of forget it ive rambled enough......its not a definate argument anyway, its more vague than that......and I dont want to be s precise as legal rights.................oooh apart form something that i think that i could prove to you....that elephants have a concept of murder and unjust killing
I don't have a problem with rights. I support many animal rights. Because humans and animals are sentient.
But deep ecology tries to assign rights (or at least 'intrinsic value') merely to life, or even ecosystems. I find that silly. Why should life *per se* have rights? Why should inanimate objects that make up an ecosystem have rights? My view is we should protect non-sentient life and ecosystems for the sake of the sentient creatures that rely on them, not for the sake of the ecosystem in itself.
i.e. the assigning of rights and the weirdness of this concept .
I dont be believe that all species should be kept in a zoo however, i do believe that species should have the ability and potential to express to the bounds of their possibility, because this way we allow evoliution to occur in a way that is freer from human arbitarily artificial concept......now yes human concepts evolve as well, but the power behing human society means that certain human concepts can have huge effects based on relatively little to do with the concept but nby being able to harness the enormous power that they can control. Trees should not be kept as specimins but should be able to create the environment that they would naturally, in competition with other species. Of course humans are animals and they also will infliuence the environment, what is annoying is the uneccessary industial and arbitary exploitation (with its basis in the unecessary capitalism that i oft complain of) There are many choices all the time of what we will do, and it is these that can be used to influence for the better, there is no one thing we can do, but.....blah blah blah
or if the whole species can only be contained in and artificial arbitary environment of human society origin.
co-existance with humans and humans as animal modification of their habits is ok, but not if it is for something that is less natural.(i.e. only for mechanistic purpose for the use of the system)
to use words is sometimes to defeat the point
of how useful you are to 'the man'? do you consider yourself to be 'the man's' bitch (Ok we all are to all intents and purposes, but I am not happy with this state of affairs and I do not consider this to be a moral state of affairs, only one bourne of practicality)
What about you? are you happy to be the property of 'the man'?
Ideally I would gain my living from a smallholding, but unfortunately land usage is dictated by capitalism
remember they have nothing to compare it with, i am sure the refuge of apparent normality that they see in other dads might sometimes beckon them on a few occassions
its just part of me, it should be for everyone, but modern societies artificiality tends to remove a lot of it (witness my previous lone arguments about the taboo'ism of being able to smell other humans (who aren't your lovers, or infant babies or nursing mothers) in western society, or the demonisation of hair, or the fetishistic hygiene beyond medical hygiene needs, or the fetishisation and objectification of much that we want.....the imprisonment of our psyche into 'hobbies that are dependant on technology' and our continual separation from communal living aspects.
Humans are animals too, which although many acknowledge with a mental nod, they don't take on board into this mental argument.
Many men have it in them that they want to challange for leadership of the country (warband party leader) yet it is unacceptable to challange for this just because you are able....the rites of challange are so artificial and contrived and superficial (join a party and use duplicity/ruthlessness/fibbing to get to the top and then fib/hide truth to get in) that it is no wonder that modern democratic human societies end up with such incapable leaders
might react against something that is presented and described as the 'ecofeminist' movement (cos the wiki article sort of presents it as such) (as do other sorts of movements and media) But it does not mean that he feelings and meaning behind it all is rubbish.
I tend not to read articles about stuff like that, instead i observe mostly and try to feel as an animal and human on these matters.
One point with regard to Kant and the idea of humans being able to be regarded as 'I'
Well I noticed a theme a while back about 'remarkable individuals' (Im sure its not unique) but certain individuals in populations that have a mode of behaviour can behave differently and sometimes in many different ways, examples are often difficult for humans to notice, but we can notice it in things like the macaque monkeys on the different japanese islands, and behaviours of chimps, etc on the south island, a macaque used sea water to seperate grains of rice mixed in with sand.....the individual that started doing this also developed other food garnering methods.......even if they were given non sand mixed rice, some of the macaques chose to still wash the rice in sea water and some didnt, it all came down to a matter of taste. salted or plain rice.
In the north island One of the monkeys must have made the initial decision to bathe in the hot water spring, others followed.
on another island one monkey has been observed to 'like' riding on the deer's backs
chimps employ a wide range of techniques for getting food by different means, some methods being unique to particular groups or individuals.....thus we see 'culture' being developed by individuals.
Many humans on the other hand (and i dont mean infants and the senile or mentallu damaged) seem to insulate themselves from being 'individual as much as possible'
he wasn't actually 'saying' that, he was quoting the equating of both movements commonality in opposition of some attitudes as they links as to their origin.
Anyway women AND men ARE animals.
dis humbruger irs delisrous
i'm doing my dissertation on this topic FFS
you guys all suck
as it happens I have some brilliant opinions on all this stuff. But you'd only be cheating yourself.
unless it was a footnote at the bottom with a link to this thread then just "Lol. Accessed 15:05 15/06/2011"
give us something to work with bro
was going to also try to write arguments for/against vegetarianism into it but i havn't worked out how to make that into a strictly philosophical argument yet so I'm just gonna do a discussion of various moral stances on animal rights.
and run a version of Thomas Birch's 'universal consideration' argument. 'Universal consideration' is thus what constitutes animals as beings deserving moral consideration, while simultaneously (although Birch doesn't really recognise this) denying them any defined, essential or universal rights/value.
gonna look into the cross over between kantian approach and that of virtue ethics. Looks like there might be something to say there.
so they dont get to step on (and kill) any ants, these people have really missed the point
Give women the vote? LOLOLOLO MIGHT AS WELL GIVE ANIMALS THE VOTE AMIRITE BROS?!
that means you're saying his dissertation is ''pointless''. You brute.
"it" is a lot less insightful/promising than I would have thought.
gwan yersel weesacks <3 xxx
for instance, today I broke a stem branch of a mugwort plant, so i gave it 3 of my hairs in return, ok it cant use the hairs particularly well (urea would be of more use to it)
when i pick other flowers i might give them a bit of my skin or hair, or in the past a pinch of tobacco, or maybe even a blim (if its significant enough) in return, of course this is merely symbolic, but that is important, as it defocuses your mind from being so self/human centric, it prevents utilitarianism, and would prevent industrial exploitation, I am of course not the only person who does this....oh and yes, when I pick wild flowers/plants it IS ok....oh and yes i DO help scarcer plants or ones that are just hanging on, have a slightly better chance, and yes that IS my 'judgement', but it is the judggement of an informed and botanicaly knowledgable human who IS acting on animal sensibilities
im not advocating guilt and recompense for accidentally bruising a flower
I'm in Fallowfield at the moment and I'd say its nearer the 41% mark
yeah cant be arsed posting in this thread cause this site is fucking shite but i will think about this and message you about it.
you're one of the good ones