Why vegans are simply better people

[Hazel]

Well, duh.. Men became available to fill those man jobs that women had been doing during the war...

Exactly. Women were laid off so fast that you'd think they never were there.

 

[epepke]

Why is that odd? Women didn't also suddenly surrender the franchise or request to be escorted by a gentleman upon entering a pub after the end of that war, either, even if that's the wrong war to reference in this case.

The main point upon which we agree is that there are ample economic and political mechanisms in place for the transformation of our own omnivore society into a vegan society without any moral tinge to it whatsoever. We have a choice now whereas our recent ancestors did not.

No; we don't, really. It is possible that some people have a choice, but at the current level of technology, it depends a lot on individual and group physiology.

I can never become a vegan. I know this because I've tried. Even an ovo-lacto diet doesn't seem to keep my body and brain working properly. I currently attribute this to my fast gut, which I think I inherited from my Bavarian ancestors.

Someone with a 24-hour gut instead of a 4- to 6-hour gut might be able to handle it fine. Still, I think not as many as are claimed. The fact that so many vegans claim that practically everyone could be a vegan indicates to me that there is something wrong with their brains. The premature balding, fine facial wrinkles, and joint problems that so many exhibit or complain about reinforce my conclusion.

I am just as susceptible to the moral arguments as anybody else. I would just love to be able to thrive on cruelty-free foods, and as I said, when food technology advances to the point where I can, I'll be the first in line. I'm not going to do it if it means sacrificing my health, which currently, it does. I need animal protein and fat.

 

[RandFan]

Well, duh.. Men became available to fill those man jobs that women had been doing during the war...

? If men returned to work it rather negates the premise. Jesus H. Christ. Don't give me crap about the obvious if it wasn't me who failed to get the obvious in the first place.

 

[RandFan]

As I said, what remained was conflict and time, but I don't think that it would have happened without the diaspora of African Americans, which was directly attributable to WWII.

Let's back up here. You said,

Yes, and the invention of the steam engine and industrialization, as well as the cotton gin, probably had orders of magnitude more to do with getting rid of slavery than all the moral arguments combined.

I seriously doubt that. You are entitled to an opinion but there is no facts in evidence to support the claim. Slavery didn't end until a very costly war was fought. That war was predicated on moral argument.

 

[RandFan]

Why is that odd?

It's only odd when we try to reconcile that with your original statement.

Women didn't also suddenly surrender the franchise or request to be escorted by a gentleman upon entering a pub after the end of that war, either, even if that's the wrong war to reference in this case.

The main point upon which we agree is that there are ample economic and political mechanisms in place for the transformation of our own omnivore society into a vegan society without any moral tinge to it whatsoever. We have a choice now whereas our recent ancestors did not.

That's the parallel with ethnic group empowerment, gender equality, or virtually any other issue you think is a moral one but is really a matter of economics and political reality.

I've no idea what this has to do with your original statement. I've no idea what the future holds. I suspect, in large part because of technology that morals regarding animal husbandry will change. I'm somewhat dubious as to your claim of women and find that you have not provided a nexus for your claim.

 

[RandFan]

Every social transformation is not rooted in violence just because a couple you selected have been. Violence can galvanise change but you'd have a tough time arguing that's a morally correct choice. It's more like the desperation of a fringe group of agitators or the result of demagoguery.

I'm sorry but history simply speaks against you. American revolution, Bolshevik revolution, French revolution, South Africa, Indian independence, Arab Spring, etc., etc.. I'm not saying that violence is requisite, I'm saying that protest and demanding change is. Often it does require violence or, in the case of India, forcing those who would subjugate to act violently.

To persuade me otherwise you would at least need some examples like the once I mentioned that brought about similar change. And let me hasten to add, yes, change can and does often come slowly. But why must people wait for change? Why was it necessary for blacks to remain second class citizens so as to not interrupt society?

I believe fundamental rights are sufficient to justify the disruption of society to seek change. Power is seductive and dulls empathy, and once had it is a drug and therefore it corrupts. Those in power have little incentive to give it up. Hence revolution.

 

[epepke]

Let's back up here. You said,

I seriously doubt that. You are entitled to an opinion but there is no facts in evidence to support the claim. Slavery didn't end until a very costly war was fought. That war was predicated on moral argument.

Factually, only the Radical Republicans thought that the Civil War was mainly about slavery. If we cannot even agree about the facts, there isn't much point in arguing about the implications.

 

[Hazel]

I'm sorry but history simply speaks against you. American revolution, Bolshevik revolution, French revolution, South Africa, Indian independence, Arab Spring, etc., etc.. I'm not saying that violence is requisite, I'm saying that protest and demanding change is. Often it does require violence or, in the case of India, forcing those who would subjugate to act violently.

To persuade me otherwise you would at least need some examples like the once I mentioned that brought about similar change. And let me hasten to add, yes, change can and does often come slowly. But why must people wait for change? Why was it necessary for blacks to remain second class citizens so as to not interrupt society?

I believe fundamental rights are sufficient to justify the disruption of society to seek change. Power is seductive and dulls empathy, and once had it is a drug and therefore it corrupts. Those in power have little incentive to give it up. Hence revolution.

I hope there is someone here from Canada who can be sure I get this right or set me straight. Someone in Canada once commented that it took them longer to get their independence but they at least did not have to fight a bloody revolution to do it.

 

[RandFan]

Factually, only the Radical Republicans thought that the Civil War was mainly about slavery.

Really? This is such an old saw.

If we cannot even agree about the facts, there isn't much point in arguing about the implications.

You are entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. While slavery was not the exclusive factor it was by far the largest and every other factor was in part tied with slavery.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

There’s No Debating It Americans, Slavery Caused The Civil War

 

[RandFan]

I hope there is someone here from Canada who can be sure I get this right or set me straight. Someone in Canada once commented that it took them longer to get their independence but they at least did not have to fight a bloody revolution to do it.

While I didn't mention Canada I addressed that fact directly. I conceded that change can come slowly. It's not for me to judge what is better. The lack of liberty for generations or the blood shed to attain liberty. One could easily argue that WWII need not be fought. It's not for me to go back in time and tell slaves they should have kept quite. Or to tell women they should have kept quite. Civil rights workers, keep quiet.

 

[eeyore1954]

I can't wait until science gives us cows with no brains and 30-40 tenderloins.

Have you ever read the Douglas Adams. Instead of an animal with no brains it is one with brains that wants to be eaten

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table,
a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with
large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have
been an ingratiating smile on its lips.

‘Good evening’, it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches,
‘I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts
of my body?’

 

[caniswalensis]

Yes, and the invention of the steam engine and industrialization, as well as the cotton gin, probably had orders of magnitude more to do with getting rid of slavery than all the moral arguments combined.

I seriously doubt that. You are entitled to an opinion but there is no facts in evidence to support the claim. Slavery didn't end until a very costly war was fought. That war was predicated on moral argument.

You are correct Randfan. In fact, in post #207 above, I explain how the technology of the cotton gin actually increased slavery greatly. Your posted link backs me up on this.

regards, Canis

 

[Skeptical Greg]

? If men returned to work it rather negates the premise. Jesus H. Christ. Don't give me crap about the obvious if it wasn't me who failed to get the obvious in the first place.

Lighten up ...
Why didn't you quote my ' big grin ', or do you not see smilies..

 

[RandFan]

Lighten up ...
Why didn't you quote my ' big grin ', or do you not see smilies..

If you intend to convey they idea that you don't take yourself too seriously then works quite well. This, does not. I usually encounter the laughing smilie in response to either an obvious joke or flame wars.

 

[RandFan]

You are correct Randfan. In fact, in post #207 above, I explain how the technology of the cotton gin actually increased slavery greatly. Your posted link backs me up on this.

regards, Canis

Thanks, agreed. I take the importance of the dialectic very seriously. The idea that technology changes and suddenly people are feeling tolerant and generous is silly. The Stonewall riots and subsequent gay rights movement is just one example of how a community had to fight for their rights. To minimize the struggle and suggest that it had little or nothing to do with moral and social progress is to fail to understand the importance of free expression and democracy. In his book The Case For Democracy Natan Sharansky details just how vital freedom of expression is to moral progress. Why is North Korea stuck in the twilight zone? It's due to what Sharanksy argues is the inability to advance the zietgeist through conversation. Why is that autocratic regimes control speech? China, Iran, the former Soviet Union? Is this even a subject worthy of serious skepticism?

IMO the evidence is so persuasive one might as well argue against gravity or evolution.

 

[epepke]

Thanks, agreed. I take the importance of the dialectic very seriously. The idea that technology changes and suddenly people are feeling tolerant and generous is silly.

Fortunately, I haven't said that. I don't think anybody has.

The idea is that technological and social improvements are a sine qua non and precede the actual changes.

The invention of the sewing machine, for example, drastically increased the number of seamstresses. The increase was only temporary, though.

 

[Johny2x4]

The OP gave me the mood for a hamburger. Anybody want one?

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

The OP gave me the mood for a hamburger. Anybody want one?

Sounds good. Lemme just finish this smoke.

 

[RandFan]

The idea is that technological and social improvements are a sine qua non and precede the actual changes.

At best you can cite correlation but not causation.

Sewing machines might result in more seamstresses but it doesn't mean that sewing machines are requisite for women to have rights. It doesn't mean that sewing machines will result in rights. I concede that technology CAN being about social and moral change in betterment of citizens but it's hardly essential. Technology didn't result in the freedom of the Soviet dissidents languishing in the gulags.

If you want to press this idea you will need something more than correlated examples.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Fortunately, I haven't said that. I don't think anybody has.

The idea is that technological and social improvements are a sine qua non and precede the actual changes.

Is this hypothesis falsifiable?

Here's a counter-example: The animal liberation movement started in the mid-Seventies and rapidly grew in strength from there. It has made radical changes to the laws about how animals maybe treated, in the home, commercially and scientifically. What technological or social improvement drove this change? I can't think of any technological or social innovation that is clearly related to animal welfare, started around 1970 and has been on an upward trend ever since.

Here's another counter-example, and a more general one: Any kind of social progress which doesn't defy the laws of physics given our current technological level which hasn't happened yet. There's no technological barrier that makes sexism, racism, classism, economic stratification and lack of class mobility or whatever other issue gets your personal goat a necessary part of the world, but they all still occur. If technological and social progress were the real cause of moral progress why didn't these things all vanish the moment it was technologically possible for them to vanish?

The conventional theory that the animal welfare movement was driven by reason, and that an increasing number of people are too rational to maintain an artificial division between how they think it's moral to treat one group of mammals (humans) and how they treat every other mammal seems to explain the animal welfare phenomenon much better.

I suspect what's going on here is just that progress which is socially or technologically impossible doesn't happen, because it's impossible. That doesn't mean that technological and social improvements cause the change, they just make certain changes possible.

In a way your theory is wildly optimistic. It assumes that humans are such wonderful creatures that they automatically do the most moral things possible within the constraints of society and technology. I wish that were true but I'm pretty sure it's not.