Forest

Eryndlynd wrote:

Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

A believe their wis a study dun an the restults where that plants don't feel pain like animals but they do have sum sort o conscious as they respond tae music (a cannae rember how tho). With ma moral code a wid leave it an let it fall doon an leave it fir the wee beesties (insects) tae eat, as chopin it doon might also be killin/starvin the fugus (sum fungi are parasitic).

Sean Fiobha wrote:

Sorry Long-Term Capital Gains a tryed tae have a look around on baeth the uk an American website, the only thing a can tell ye is that its in stock in the uk.

See, I looked there cause I'll totally pay, but I cannot see a "add to cart" anywhere unless I've gone blind.

Eryndlynd wrote:

I've been a vegetarian for fourteen years. During that time, I've been an amateur boxer, a backpacker and backwoods trail builder, and most recently I have been splitting my own firewood with an axe for heat for my wood stove. A balanced vegetarian/vegan diet provides more than enough fuel to build strength and live vigorously, if that's what one wishes to do. I'll be your second data point for this test🙂

That's a line, aka a trend. Stick a QED in it folks, were done. Now, where'd I put the Twinkies...

Salvezia wrote:

I envy you For the succes in stay vegetarian, i’m trying hard but the dark side is strong (they have ham!)

It helps when economic factors -- produce cooked at home is cheap -- are the primary motivation.

It also helps to really like oatmeal cause you'll be eating a crapton of it :D

Turbeaux wrote:

Healthy feels better than ham tastes. Also, we do not sit around eating cardboard every day (at least I don't).

To be fair, cardboard is basically cellulose, of which I eat absurd amounts.

With blueberries. That's the trick.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

As a non-vegetarian who generally avoids fast food, I didn't expect to be in this position, but I can offer an endorsement here of Burger King's new Rebel Whopper, which is basically a whopper made from vegetable protein.

I have no idea if it is healthy at all, or if there's a hidden environmental impact, but I ate one yesterday (with mayo left off) and it was really quite good.

Had a Beyond Burger a while ago. Thought the texture and taste was more like sausage.

So a local coffee shop sold me a Beyond egg and sausage sandwich, which is basically perfect unless you're a vegan.

I suspect the sodium is still through the roof, but I'll bet many people cannot tell the difference.

Bananaistan wrote:

Anyone ever read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer?

A philosophy/atheism/and more recently veganism YouTuber I follows and used to have great time for and thought was an intellectual powerhouse recommended it in his 2020 50 books to read video. According to him on the basis of chapter one alone he became a vegan and he challenged his friends that he would buy them the book and they would also go vegan. Five of his friends accepted and became vegans.

I read chapter one with an open mind. I did not become a vegan. I know think yer man on youtube and his friends are actually weak minded fools. It was not the airtight philosophical justification for veganism that I had expected.

I have read Animal Liberation, and loads of other Singer works. I honestly don't see how Veganism necessarily follows from any of them. Veganism is a morally absolutist position, where as Singer (at least when he wrote Animal Lib) approached the problem from a consequentialist perspective.

Thus, he concludes that most animal agriculture and scientific testing is unnecessary and immoral, but he cannot absolutely condemn all such practices, as in principle there can be some situation where the consequences justify them. He's going to hold your feet to the fire to demonstrate that justification, but he'll hear you out. By contrast, a Vegan will reject the notion of justification from the start, as an inherent and insurmountable rules violation (don't use sentient species as a means, period)

In most day to day concerns, he's effectively a vegan, but in philosophical terms, that's a clear line in the sand.

So yeah, how one reads Animal Lib and arrives at a morally absolutist position...is bizarre. Someone wasn't reading very carefully.

EDIT: or, to be more fair, Animal Lib was a popular work that just assumed all the dry and boring philosophical stuff as given. Reading that philosophical stuff first, to establish the proper context, would help.

Long-Term Capital Gains wrote:

I have read Animal Liberation, and loads of other Singer works. I honestly don't see how Veganism necessarily follows from any of them. Veganism is a morally absolutist position, where as Singer (at least when he wrote Animal Lib) approached the problem from a consequentialist perspective.

Thus, he concludes that most animal agriculture and scientific testing is unnecessary and immoral, but he cannot absolutely condemn all such practices, as in principle there can be some situation where the consequences justify them. He's going to hold your feet to the fire to demonstrate that justification, but he'll hear you out. By contrast, a Vegan will reject the notion of justification from the start, as an inherent and insurmountable rules violation (don't use sentient species as a means, period)

In most day to day concerns, he's effectively a vegan, but in philosophical terms, that's a clear line in the sand.

So yeah, how one reads Animal Lib and arrives at a morally absolutist position...is bizarre. Someone wasn't reading very carefully.

EDIT: or, to be more fair, Animal Lib was a popular work that just assumed all the dry and boring philosophical stuff as given. Reading that philosophical stuff first, to establish the proper context, would help.

I assumed the same thing about Dawkins' The God Delusion, so when I actually read it, the good stuff was all in the first two chapters and seemed more like personal incredulity than any serious case against God or even religion in general. The rest of the book was... fluff, just fluff.

Darths and Droids wrote:

I assumed the same thing about Dawkins' The God Delusion, so when I actually read it, the good stuff was all in the first two chapters and seemed more like personal incredulity than any serious case against God or even religion in general. The rest of the book was... fluff, just fluff.

Just to clarify, I'm not being critical of Animal Liberation. I simply don't think it's even trying to make the case for Veganism. It's making a case for 1) consequential ethics, and 2) that the vast majority of animal agriculture and scientific testing is immoral on consequentialist grounds.

That Vegans will also reject the use of animals is a coincidence, not proof that Animal Lib is a Vegan work.

So it's not that surprising if it fails to make more Vegans, and honestly, I think, surprising if it does. There is nothing I've read in Singer i'd call "fluff."

quote=long-term_capital_gains;37482927]

...Veganism is a morally absolutist position...[/quote]
Perhaps for some, but I wear leather shoes (in all fairness to myself, I purchased them before I transitioned). A brace that I have to wear has not fit in any other brand of shoe but it still makes me uneasy. Additionally, I am curious about why you capitalize "vegan" and "veganism." Despite how the more annoying vegans act, it is not a religion.

Thalasse wrote:

I do eat cardboard a lot.
*munches cardboard*
I despise plants with every fibre of my being.

There would not be cardboard without plants. It looks like you have some cognitive dissonance to work on.
¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

Turbeaux wrote:

. Additionally, I am curious about why you capitalize "vegan" and "veganism." Despite how the more annoying vegans act, it is not a religion.

It is a specific philosophical position, that needs in my post to be differentiated from another proper noun (Singer).

Eryndlynd wrote:

Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

It's my understanding from what I read in The Hidden Life of Trees that cutting a tree does not necessarily kill it. Sometimes the forest will keep "dead" trees and even stumps alive, through shared root systems and fungi and bacteria that convey nourishment. I know it sounds absurd, and I have no proof, but that's what the author said, and their proof sounded pretty solid to me. It's worth thinking about anyway. I recommend the book - it's very engaging and entertaining as well as informative. I listened to the audio version as I was walking in the forest, and it's totally changed how I see the trees.

Eryndlynd wrote:

If I had omnipotent power, I would create a universe that aligns to my morality that it's wrong to eat other beings and all organisms would be powered directly by sunlight.

Strictly speaking, the nutrient content of most plants is generated by photosynthesis, which means as a vegetarian I'm technically solar powered.

Thanks God!

The Council of Jutsa has voted AGAINST the current WA resolution at vote, par request of the creator of said proposal. We hope Forest, and in particular Ransium, will do the same, despite our confidence that it's probably too late and that a repeal will most likely be necessary for the desired modifications to take place.

Also hi everyone <3

Just unfollowed an Instagram meme page after the guy running it made 10 posts in a row that were more or less mocking Kobe’s death. Each had about 300 likes.

The ability for people to shut off all empathy and emotion for haha funnies and internet points that mean nothing is astounding.

Eryndlynd wrote:

Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

I don’t see the point of keeping alive diseased trees. It’s not like they’re sentient and they can be a pretty big health hazard depending on what type of infection they have.