If someone had a child, castrated him without anesthesia as an infant, and then slit his throat when he reached 12 years old, I don’t think most people would wait for further details before judging that the adult is doing something wrong and they should not have children. And so things remain even if the rest of the boy’s life is fine, even if the approximately twelve years during which he’s not being mutilated or having his throat slit outweigh the bad.But what if society was, for whatever purpose you’d like to imagine, full of children being mutilated and having their throats slit, in the billions, and whose lives were also just a never-ending nightmare, such children living in warehouses amongst feces and the corpses of their friends, suffering from untreated infections, and facing frequent physical abuse? Well, then, just mutilating a child in a few respects and slitting his throat when he’s 12 wouldn’t seem so bad. With the baseline being an eternal nightmare, you might see people who consider themselves sympathetic to children’s rights arguing that a few makeshift surgeries don’t outweigh getting to live an otherwise pleasant life, that twelve years is better than zero, that the boy wouldn’t exist if he weren’t going to have is throat slit, etc. And what if we suppose that this imagined world contains a lot of feral children frequently die of starvation or get eaten alive by predators? Well, then, people might argue that the boy who is merely mutilated and bled out has it way better most children do by default, and so it might even seem he is being done a favor.
>>5094647>humans and animals are the same in all respects!Demonic and profoundly retarded.
>>5094647Circumcision is fucked up. Totally agree with you on that one.
>>5094647So people would perceive things differently, despite the fact that nothing about the act changed beyond our initial suppositions. You shouldn’t mutilate and kill children; what is happening to other children in nature or by others’ hands does not make a difference, as long as it does not affect the circumstances around your particular choice.And what should we expect of the future of this society, as long as the most righteous of its members all but regard mutilation and exsanguination as a gift? I can only speculate, and I would speculate that making the less-than-constant-nightmare-level conditions the norm would be a lost cause. Perhaps I’m too optimistic, but I don’t think ordinary people are compartmentalized enough to believe both “Children living constant nightmares is bad and stopping it is a huge deal” and “It’s fine to mutilate them and slit their throats if you otherwise keep things pleasant for them” without an intolerable amount of tension. Realistically, I think, you’d end up with people who nominally support better conditions for children but don’t do anything about it, so that the status quo is maintained indefinitely. (. Though this is not to say activists wouldn’t be successful in replacing these conditions with still-hellish-but-less-so conditions, or that this wouldn’t be a great thing to achieve. ) No, I suspect there are only two possible futures: the one where the nightmare remains eternal, and the one where slitting someone’s throat is seen as beyond serious consideration.
>>5094647didn't read but just wanted to say inb4 the anti vegan schizo shows up and you argue with him for over 100 posts in the span of a couple hours
>>5094650I agree >>5094649Strawman>>5094651So things are for us. If someone castrated their dog with a knife without any anesthetic to save money, or slit their throat when they turned six months old for whatever trivial reason, that would rightly be seen as unconscionable. Nobody would withhold their judgment until they find out whether the good in the dog’s life outweighed the bad or whether the dog would have existed had the owner not planned to do such things. If giving someone an on-balance pleasant life is such a good thing to do, then you can literally just do that without the mutilation and killing; voluntarily being unwilling to just do that does not permit you to inflict whatever abuse you please as long as it doesn’t make their life net-negative.Yet, because factory farming is so bad, people who take themselves to care about animals’ welfare often judge it’s not such a bad thing to mutilate and kill pigs and chickens, as long as their life isn’t otherwise a constant nightmare. It is a fact that humans judgment is biased by framing, a fact that advertisers love. Whether we’re talking about the price of some widget or others’ welfare, we’re more inclined to positively favor some condition the worse the “default” happens to be. So when we consider how horrific factory farming is, https://benthams.substack.com/p/inhuman and then consider the morality of just slitting a child animal’s throat, it would be a miracle if people’s judgments weren’t irrationally skewed in favor of the latter.>>5094652I’m probably not going to bother this time. I’m satisfied with the previous threads in which he repeatedly refused to define what a human is or answer simple and perfectly logically possible hypotheticals. He’s clearly bad faith and or dumb
>>5094653But what if the default were different? What if you lived in a society where no one ate flesh? Would you be the first to propose a brilliant scheme where we can bring all these additional pleasant albeit short lives into existence, such being financed by consumers who want to eat their corpses? I’d wager not, and indeed that even if this idea occurred to you, you’d dismiss it without a second thought. Even the most hardcore consequentialist, who agrees that in principle it’d be okay to bring someone into existence and then kill them if their life is net positive, would dismiss your proposal on the basis of “second-order effects.” It would not be difficult to predict that were such actions normalized, people would start to not care a whole lot about animals’ welfare, all while they want food for as cheap as possible, all while the killers are incentivized to cut as many corners as possible, before we just end up with billions living in hell. Now, maybe in this hypothetical you’d claim it’s uncertain whether people will become so callous as to finance hell-for-billions out of convenience; unfortunately, though, we non-hypothetical people have no uncertainty in this regard.That is what the hardcore consequentialists would say. Everyone else would just say “No, it’s wrong to kill, even if the animal wouldn’t have existed otherwise. They exist now, and it’s wrong to kill them for the same reasons as usual.”How bad are non-factory-farms, anyway? I cannot emphasize this enough: the victims are killed at a fraction of their natural age; they get loaded into trucks, driven to slaughterhouses, and have their throats slit or get gassed; “meat” is the corpse of someone who did not want to die, and you do not get to eat flesh without someone dying for it; this is already horrible enough that nothing more would need to be said in any remotely sane society.
>>5094654But more can be said. You do not need to dig into vegan propaganda to see what happens on local or “family-owned” farms; the so-called farmers are happy to share their methods. Consider, for example, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gGSmNv-8YQ entitled “DIY Pig Castration - No Expensive Vet Bill.” The video was uploaded by a Sheraton Park Farms from North Carolina, https://www.sheratonparkfarms.com/ whose website advertises that “All of our animals are raised on pasture where they are able to express their full personalities and live as they were intended to.” In this video at about the 6 minute mark, you can see a piglet being held down by a woman, and after cleaning the area, a man slices into his scrotum with a box cutter, at which point he immediately screams in pain. He then presses on the piglet’s genitals in order to push his testicles out of the wound, and the testicles are detached by simply pulling them away, all while the screaming continues.For pig flesh to be “Certified Humane” or “Animal Welfare Approved,” it’s required that castration be done prior to 7 days old (unlike in the above video), but it is not required that any anesthetic be used (see here p. 19 https://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_Pigs-1.pdf and here 4.7.9; https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved/standards/pig-standards/ similar for cattle). See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2dMkPGIOUw for this mutilation being performed by people claiming to meet AWA standards. The procedure is described as follows: “I use a scalpel and I cut two incisions on the scrotum and I just pull and rip. I’ve never been a cutter, some people cut the vas deferens and stuff, but you have to cut it properly so that it doesn’t bleed too much, and I’ve found that [with] ripping there’s no bleeding, it’s beautiful.”
>>5094655The “humane” standards seem to vary a bit when it comes to what mutilations are allowed; AWA prohibits cutting tails and horns off and cutting through teeth, while CH allows them. On the other hand, regarding identifying animals, the AWA says “Where identification is required it must not cause harm to the animal,” before including punching notches into their ears https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCziM-SKTus as one of the non-harmful methods (see 4.9.2). https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved/standards/beef-cattle-and-calves-standards/#3_HEALTH_MANAGEMENT It is important that these things are being written by people who do not consider “humane slaughter” an oxymoron.Speaking of which https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved/standards/slaughter-guidelines-for-red-meat/#50_STUNNING_AND_SLAUGHTER the AWA label requires that animals be “stunned” prior to their killing so that they don’t have to consciously bleed out. Permitting forms of stunning/killing include being gassed, https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?si=jfop5xAhCj-KiOJ8&t=869 and being gassed with CO2 is merely recommended against. If you’re luckier, you get shot in the head, which will probably https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/products/FA-HumaneSlaughterReport-2017.pdf prevent you from experiencing bleeding out.And all this, I remind you, is about getting killed, and getting killed is bad, and killing is something you shouldn’t do if you don’t need to. Usually, most people don’t deny this, even in the case of animals.( As for arguments, the most common kind of argument that dying isn’t bad for non-rational animals I see (other than hedonistic ones, which is a matter to be discussed in its own right) is that animals don’t want to not die, since they don’t have a concept of death, or a concept of themselves dying, etc. But this seems like an overly-stringent condition on what an animal can want.
>>5094656In the case of a rational being, it would indeed seem weird to say “Bob doesn’t want to die, though he also doesn’t know what death is.” To my ear, this seems weird because it seems implausible that Bob would be motivated to avoid death without understanding himself as trying to avoid death. If Bob regularly engages in death-avoiding behavior without knowing what death is, then we’d be more likely to say Bob is just following some urges whose nature he doesn’t know, and we wouldn’t attribute the death-avoidance to him. But things are only this way because Bob is a rational being, i.e. we expect him to possess some higher-order awareness of the reasons for which he acts. But there’s no similar grounds for attributing these standards to non-rational beings, who act on reasons without being aware of them as reasons. The mother lion wants to protect her young; does she have a concept of “protection”? I don’t know, but that seems neither here nor there; she instinctually acts with the goal of protecting her young, without necessarily being aware of herself as such. ) If someone kills their dog, say because they just got bored of her, that would be generally and correctly regarded as a bad a thing to do to the dog. And it wouldn’t be regarded as just a little bit bad; it would be I-don’t-want-to-associate-with-that-person bad. And killing someone to eat their corpse, just because you don’t feel like eating something else? The only difference is that the latter is regarded as normal.
>>5094647Animals are not people and there are no valid ethics without a metaphysical ought. None. You do not have good and evil without god. They are abstractions of your opinions. There is only evolutionary fitness. And meat eaters remain more fit. Vegans brains and bodies never fully develop even given the greatest wealth of supplement and imported crops.
>>5094647Ok and?
https://morallawwithin.substack.com/p/non-factory-farming-is-still-profoundly?sort=top#_
>>5094647>If someone had a child, castrated him without anesthesia as an infant, and then slit his throat when he reached 12 years old, I don’t think most people would wait for further details before judging that the adult is doing something wrongI guess you never heard about transsexual kids and abortions Mutilating and killing children is a good thing, chud
>>5094657We dont like dog killers because dogs were specifically created to force mentally normal people feel empathy. Its failing a basic psychological test. Even the chinese are sick of dog eaters. Man is a machine. The world is but inputs. He is judged by his outputs and the functioning of his necessary subsystems for the benefit of his operators, his peers, and his procreation. Which are other humans, otherwise humans necessarily devolve into a lesser ape. You are certainly free to. Just dont involve anyone else.
>>5094658Even Theists disagree with you https://benthams.substack.com/p/arguments-for-god-tier-list?utm_source=publication-search&sort=communityThere’s simply never been any convincing reason to think that, say, a Platonist account of morality is defective. https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-dont-buy-the-moral-argument?utm_source=publication-search Given the many different accounts of morality, it’s hard to see on what grounds one would declare them all defective.The argument can only work if God is the sort of thing capable of grounding the moral facts. But how can an agent ground a moral fact? It seems that, say, the wrongness of torture depends on facts about torture, not facts about some extra agent. God can’t ground the moral facts any more than physical things could ground the logical facts. And there isn’t even a parsimony advantage to using God to explain the moral facts, because for every fact the atheist posits as brute, the theist brutely grounds it in God.I’ve laid out all these charges in more detail here. Ironically, if I became convinced that the first premise was true, then I’d stop being a theist. If morality can’t be grounded in God, and wouldn’t exist absent God, then objective morality doesn’t exist. But theism can only be true if objective morality exists (how can God be perfect if there’s no such thing as objective perfection). Thus, I think the argument is a massive own goal—the stronger the arguments for premise 1, the lower your credence in theism should be.I’ve only talked about morality, but the same points apply, mutatis mutandis (wow, aren’t I smart, using SAT words), to arguments from math, logic, and modality.AlsoEvolution is real. Two non “persons” did not give birth to a “person” that makes no sense. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sqFbQgVrg7sPresup has already been destroyed https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LyL7rMfJ7lA
>>5094647BROWHAT IF TREES WERE KIDSPROOF LOGGING IS WRONGSTOP USING WOODMUH METABOLICALLY ACTIVE BEINGS. STAR TREK I MEAN LOGIC AND SELF EVIDENT PRINCIPLES SAYS THEY SHOULD HAVE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. LIFE BRO! I AM VERY GOOD AND MORAL! I LIE ON PERSONALITY TESTS TO APPEAR GOOD BUT IN REAL LIFE I AM HORRIBLY EVIL AND FANTASIZE ABOUT MURDERING LUMBERJACKS! I AM A NARCISSIST AND TELESCOPE PHILANTROPY IS MY SOLE SOURCE OF CLOUTt. the logical equivalent of a vegan/greenpeace faggotwe must:farm gmo brainless cattlebuild more nuclear power plantsreclassify vegans as a potential food source
>>5094661Many vegans are against most human abortions too https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9ohttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brKhhZlUoOchttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VIwWhdvrYREThe earliest case for which I believe the precautionary principle should hold was around 43-45 days. Which comes out to be 6.1-6.4 weeks.The fetal brain begins to develop around 3-5 weeks gestation. So I am okay with abortions prior to that timeframe.It's hard to say what the levels of sentience equate to at each week. But I wouldn't not assume this is a miniscule amount of sentience. Many EEG brain patterns observed in fetal brains as early as 6.1-6.4 weeks ( high voltageslow waves with superimposed fast activity) are comparable to mature birds, mature frogs, mature rabbits and the mature marmot. We can even observe sleep spindles in the fetal brain this early.Does this prove the same degree of sentience? No. Does this give us reason to take the precautionary principle with respect to this degree of sentience? Yeshttps://www.dominionmovement.com/watchhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWMVqkRuj4
>>5094665TldrThere is no morality without consequence. You are a dysfunctional idiot lost in useless abstractions. There is no higher morality without metaphysics. Not just god but magic soul and karma bullshit, aka humans obfuscating their opinions. You are a narcissist. You engage in this worthless philosphizing to feel and attempt to perform as a smarter and more enlightened person than you are. Accept, now, you are a lowly animal and you will live or die or be weak or strong and in the end you WILL die and no good or evil will come upon you because spirituality is not real. >bruh how can humans be important but animals notFind a man who is about to kill a chickenShoot himFind out what happensWhen you are in jail, think about why>*gasp* the most common incarnation of a self replicating organism has in group preference! how could this be! asks the defective one that has been removed from the gene pool
>>5094667>I made this god called sentience and I made its rules. We must honor oh sentience the most holy. Sentience guides my steps. Oh, holy sentience!Who gives a FUCK?Do we want more people or less?Abortion ends a human life. The consequence is the same as killing a child at any age. It is killing a child. Sentience doesn’t factor in to this because its a spirit your DUMB FUCKING ASS made up to obfuscate your opinion, that you feel worse about killing kids when you can imagine them squirming but don’t care as much if they dont. Ultimately you want to approve of killing human children to curry the favor of others but don’t want to feel too bad about. Thats all you are. You’re a narcissist. You serve your self. You fabricate and structure these absurd, godless vaporware ethics to avoid offending yourself and to curry favor with others to please yourself and gain social standing. You have no genuine devotion to anything but yourself and how refined and enlightened you want to APPEAR.
that's a whole lotta words just to say you're a faggot
>>5094668>There is no morality without consequence. You are a dysfunctional idiot lost in useless abstractions. There is no higher morality without metaphysics. Not just god but magic soul and karma bullshit, aka humans obfuscating their opinions. Moral realism is still possible even if God and an afterlife does not exist. https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-dont-buy-the-moral-argument?utm_source=publication-search So, in short, moral realism is the idea that there are things that you should or shouldn’t do and that this fact doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about them. So, for instance, suppose you take a baby and hit it with great force with a hammer. Moral realism says:1 You’re doing something wrong.2 That fact doesn’t depend on anyone’s beliefs about it. You approving of it, or the person appraising the situation approving of it, or society approving of it doesn’t determine its wrongness (of course, it might be that what makes its wrong is its effects on the baby, resulting in the baby not approving of it, but that’s different from someone’s higher-level beliefs about the act. It’s an objective fact that a particular person won a high-school debate round, even though that depended on what the judges thought).Moral realism says that some moral statements are true and this doesn’t depend on what people think about it. Now, there are only three possible ways any particular moral statement can fail to be stance independently true:1 It’s neither true nor false.2 It’s false.3 It’s true but stance dependently—so it depends on what someone thinks about it.https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-in-objective-morality?utm_source=publication-search
>>5094671And the best part about this is if the scientific evidence were even more incomplete and academic consensus could not prove “sentience” until several months, you would STILL TAKE IT AS DEFINITIVE and structure your absurd godless ethics around that instead, and thus proclaim yourself right anyways and support something your current self would proclaim a sin against HOLY SENTIENCE In my system, called reality, at any stage of fetal development its a human, and the question is, do we want to kill this child or let it grow? Do we want to be habitual child killers of any sort? Do we want to only kill some children to maximally benefit ourselves? I think, in any case, it is always killing a child and if you don’t want to kill children, don’t make them so carelessly.
>>5094663https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FK31elwqp-shttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OdTFF8gHIIhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nh1Z3UTobrYhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2Uycj6oskhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2dLyguPfh-c
>>5094674>rule of 3>worthless substack linksDID NOT READ. TURN OFF THE BOT AND USE YOUR OWN WORDS. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WITHOUT CONSEQUENCEWITH NO GOD TO ANGER NOR A SOUL TO POLLUTE NOR A FABRIC OF REALITY TO DISRUPTDISCARD YOUR MADE UP SPIRITSCEASE WITH THIS PAGANISM, KILL YOUR FALSE IDOLS FROM SENTIENCE TO SAPIENCE AND LOOK OUTWARDS TO YOUR NEIGHBORS
>>5094678what a fascinating idea https://blahblahblah isUse your own words or fuck off, NPC. You unthinking faggot. We once tolerated dog eaters and found they hurt our sons brothers daughters fathers and mothers while cow eaters remained amicable. Nothing explained this, nothing set them apart but having habituated themselves to the slaughter of dogs. Now we don’t tolerate dog eaters and our fellows are not harmed. Facts need not go further than this.
>>5094683>>5094680>anti empiricism this will be my last response to you in this thread >>5094676https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoTpQr4dSw>non sentient human tumor fetus rights matter >The tumor you're describing is a **biparental complete hydatidiform mole** (also known as familial biparental hydatidiform mole or BiCHM).>This is a rare type of gestational trophoblastic disease that arises from an abnormal pregnancy at the time of fertilization. Unlike the more common complete hydatidiform moles (which have only paternal chromosomes), this variant has a diploid genome with contributions from both parents (biparental)—one set of chromosomes from the mother and one from the father. >However, due to maternal genetic mutations (often in genes like NLRP7 or KHDC3L), it develops the characteristic molar tissue (hydropic villi and trophoblastic hyperplasia) without fetal development.>It often recurs in affected women and is considered a benign tumor-like growth of placental tissue, though it carries a risk of progressing to persistent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.
>>5094686>point missing (narcissists are unable to see their own hubris - namely that empirical evidence is always finite and can not be used to construct a behavioral rule in CONTRADICTION to other empirical evidence ie: long term result of abortion at 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, and 3 years is identical besides caloric investment)>no refutation>AI generated textBehold, the smartest vegan with the most integrity. >Grok tell me its okay to kill a baby -YouGo to hell. Faggot.
>>5094690>no refutation>point missing It’s in the YouTube link. Also it’s obvious. Do you want me to spoon feed you a syllogism? >>5094671>Abortion ends a human lifeYou never defined what a “human life” is, but since you dont Believe a human fetus must at least be healthy enough to be sentient to have rights it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t grant certain tumors rights. Idk which anon you are but in every single previous /an/ vegan thread I’ve been in carnists refuse to define it even when repeatedly pressed.I’m leaving the thread now because this is a waste of time
>>5094692What does the future look like if:A child is killed at 3 weeksAt 10 monthsThe same. If you do not kill a fetal child they grow live and die as they would have without you killing them>but logically-But evidentially. You support killing kids as long as you dont feel bad about it given what you think you know. That’s it!Simultaneously you are against killing CHICKENS. Your ethereal science soul is a rhetorical tool ironically opposed to the results of a simple scientific experiment. Because you skip the science part and use limited data to prove the existence of “holy sentience”. Tell me which magic man was born from mary and preached about sentience? NONE. It is an arbitrary line in the sand. Kill children if you wantBut shut it with this BULLSHIT:>Noooo dont kill that chicken, its SENTIENT>oh that baby hasnt woken up yet, one more day to go, kill it gurrrrl yass queen slayyyyyYou worthless fucking dysfunctional little narcissistYou cant posit a meaningful thought without AI or expecting people to care about “sources” you cant even cite>its in there honest!Cool i dont care what you think you would think if you saw a video on youtube. All you do is perform as an intellectual but you lack intellect. You are an expert in excuse making. Go. Leave. Return to reddit.
>>5094692Human lives are self defined, idiot. Name that trait is an absurdity. You hide in the failings and fallacies of language to avoid confronting the reality of how fucking stupid you are.
>>5094696>White lives are self defined, idiot. Name that trait is an absurdity. You hide in the failings and fallacies of language to avoid confronting the reality of how fucking stupid you are.And yes name the trait can be used against racism too it’s not only effective against speciesism
>>5094723>compares africans to animalsgg no re. next you will say you’d torture mentally disabled kids to death rather than chimps and murder cattle ranchers right?african americans are human european americans are humancattle and chickens are not human>but technically it is difficult to construct a concise logical def-does not fucking matter. get your head out of your fucking ass you smarmy narcissistic baby killing chicken advocate.
Bump
>>5094647the main difference being that they are animals, not children
