Scholar

Well that's at least something, I change my mind then. But the stuff he shows still looks like Bullshido, and no clue if that was a proper world tournament, or what even was the relevancy of it.

I still want to see evidence that he actually won a world tournament. I still think it's a lot of bullshido.

I have similar results as a vegan, the nurses usually are shocked about it. I'm not aware there are any negative consequences of having low cholesterol.

All cells in your body are enslaved to the organism that makes up what you are. A selfish cell might call itself a slave, but it doesn't realize that it would be nothing without the organism, that it wouldn't be capable of survival. What you call slavery is simply being part of a collective organism. The problem with a contracted identity is that it is not in harmony with reality. You are part of a whole, and enough resistance against the collective evolutionary motion will lead to your suffering and eventual removal from the evolutionary process. The benefit here is that you, even if your influence is miniscule, get to shape the collective through your participation in it. And the collective itself is also subordinated to the greater process of evolution taking place on earth, it's not arbitrary.

Surface level but for those of you who are not familiar with these concepts this can be educational:

The process of evolution will eradicate antinatalist tendencies. If you chose not to participate in life, you will not shape life. Even if the anti-natalists were to succeed in their dream, they would have zero impact on the bigger picture, because reality is infinite. There will be life, and it will continue for all of eternity, in all it's possible forms.

Moral systems are different of morality. Morality just translatesto preferences, like I said, and those are very real. When you say "People shouldn't rape my children", that's not soething your mind just randomly spinned up, it's just part of your subjectivity, it means "I really don't want people to rape my children.". It isn't an arbitrary invention.

This isn't the case, if it was, poor people in developed nations would have less kids than college educated individuals. The reason for not having kids are far more multifasceted and deeper than relative poverty, which seems to be a minor factor.

You are more of an objectivist than me. Morality just equates to preferences. Instead of using the word "moral" use the word "preference", and you will see what moral systems are in the first place, an attemptto capture the expression of subjectivity within any given individual. You are still stuck in objectivist notions of morality without realizing it. There is a reality to what your mind prefers, or what will lead to an optimal expression of your subjective ends.

Yes, obviously. But right now it's time for the annoying vegans.

Actually an interesting theory, mrgirl has been an a schizoid journey trying to argue with physicist that the universe is a black hole for the past months: https://observerphysics.com/videos/v/einsteins-first-mistake-the-speed-of-light https://observerphysics.com/videos/v/0 No clue if the physics works out at all, but I must say I would not be surprised at all if this was the case.

I agree, but it's probably a phase a lot of people have to go through, I don't know exactly how they would avoid this. And sometimes moral crusades have functions, even if it does not benefit the individual who is possessed by it.

Okay but now you are saying "As long as you don't point out the injustice, you're okay.". I think the moralizing is fine as long as it happens calmly and rationally. Spineless pick-me vegans are not really the way you want to be, that's probably as unhealthy as the other extreme. You want to be able to actually speak up for what you belief in, without it devolving into screaming matches.

The evolution goes like this: Recognizing universality of personhood. Inability to maintain clear seperation of identity between species boundaries. Desire to avoid negative self identity (someone who would objectify others and inflict torture on them in perverse ways for something trivial like pleasure and convenience). Repulsion at the idea of participating in the objectificaiton and commodification of animals. So that's basically what is going to happen over time. The reason why this is different from ethical considerations via harm-principle is because, when we drink coffee, we do not actually participate in an industry which systematically breeds, enslaves, rapes, tortures and kills individuals and then subsequently using their corpses and secretions as objects. Once identity has expanded, the basic desire to avoid being an individual who would participate in this for mere pleasure would outweight the desire to continue consuming those products.

Not all individuated beings have a developed consciousness. They wouldn't eat us because they would see their own consciousness reflected in ours, and would naturally unify their subjectivity with ours. There are only individuated beings, non-individuated beings do not exist, they are simply part of the unity of reality. The higher intelligent beings would limit themselves because they are not depriving existence from subjectivity, or contradicting subjectivity, when they consuming non-individuated matter. I think the fact that you think you would not attempt to teach other beings why they shouldn't kill and eat your loved ones when they have otheralternatives shows how alienated and disconnected you are from your own subjectivity. Either that is the case, or you have a profoundly idiosyncratic subjectivity, which will not be able to sustain itself throughout time.

Loving a rock doesn't mean you will be concerned about it breaking apart, because there is no individuated substance to the rock. When I see a family member of mine suffering, I don't care about them as an object, but as an experiencing individual, who wants to avoid suffering. In simple terms, my end necessarily is the full expression of my subjectivity, as is the the case with the subjectivity of any other being. A rocks full expression of itself is always itself, no matter what the rock looks like. The same applies to plants. So, an expansion of identity to rocks will not make me concerned about their well-being, because rocks don't have well being, they don't have subjectivity, nor do plants. But animals and humans do, and so, for the flourishing of their being, which is their subjectivity, I seek to aid them in the expression of their subjectivity as that is part of the expression of my own subjectivity.

There aren't enough autistic people to care about this nonsense.

That's a question you would have to ask yourself. I wouldn't do it because to me there would be no point in inflicting suffering onto another being in that context, and I don't wish to inflict suffering onto things which I have extended my identity towards. @DefinitelyNotARobot Yes I basically agree, it's hard to say in the end what will yield results though.

I was asking in the frame of you being an immortal all powerful being. I'm not projecting any qualities on animals, I was asking you a question about humans. I'm not sensitive towards eating a cucumber because there is no reason to believe a cucumber is individuated, it is incapable of independent experience. Beyond that, it is incapable of suffering and other aspects of subjectivity that I value.

Yes, the basic dynamics is: People view moral consistency as the only tool to compell people to do something they do not really want to, by showing they are contradicting their own values and showing the reductios of their logic to them. But as you say, where we draw the line for what is acceptable and not in the end is arbitrary in the sense that, we could go much further than we are currently demanding to go, and future humans probably will have those expectations as baseline. The danger with this kind of self-awareness, and the misapplication of notions of hypocrisy, is that at any given point in time you can create a slippery slope which would put such a high burden on a given individual that they no longer would feel compelled to actually abide my the moral standard. We humans can only adopt so much responsibility for our actions at a time, too much and we cannot maintain the responsibility. More responsibility necessitates more selflessness. Expansion of identity has to happen gradually. If a tribal person for example expanded their identity to complete universality, they might have significantly hampered the survival of their own tribe, maybe even acted in contradiction to it. We can see this with vegans who view it as permissible to kill carnists, as long as the consequences would be positive. This type of alientation, from a rapid expansion of identity that outpaces current society, can be counter-productive and slow moral evolution. This is why, in the end, it requires a change of the internal state of the mind of any given person, such that they don't feel compelled to adhere to a moral norm because of notions of ethical consistency, but rather because they genuinely desire to act that way. In essence, they have to recognize their own subjectivity and learn to express it fully. In some ways ignorance is bliss, because if you are tricked that the step you are making is the morally necessary step, and therefore compell yourself to do so, you might make that step because of how responsible you will feel for your action. If you were to recognize the full scope of your ultimate expression of subjectivity, and the responsibilities it entails, you might not feel responsible to actually adopt any of those, because of how arbitrary it will feel. You should contemplate the difference between cutting up a live cucumber into pieces and cutting up a live infant into pieces. A vegan who views veganism as a philosophy of harm reduction* There is a reason why I view veganism as a movement of ceasing the objectification and commodification of animals. It has to be a clearly defined and actualizable practice, similar to the abolition of slavery. In that sense, a carnists is closer to a slave-keeper than a vegan is to a carnist. I agree that in many ways the way of life of a Jain is a fuller expression of our subjectivity than a vegans life is. The function of hypocrisy (the ignorance towards ones own selfishness) is a function of moral evolution as it happens in systems that mainly motivate individuals through moral compulsion rather than things like expansion of compassion and love. As I described above, self-awareness is a dangerous thing in this sense, as it can hamper the progression of individuals and render moral compulsion mute, which in a system that does not cultivate love, compassion and growth in individuals can lead to significant negative consequences.

The question is, would you think it to be acceptable to kill and eat the humans if you could eat vegetables instead?

If you were an immortal all powerful being, does this mean you'd be fine with killing and eating humans?

You are not grasping my points. By the extention of your logic, advocating for the abolition of slavery in the end is just a question of where the indiviual sets their bar for what is and what isn't acceptable. The epitome of social justice would be to starve yourself to death because consuming anything wouldbe considered unethical. You are again, not really looking at veganism for what it is. It's not as radical of a principle as you think. It's not about abolishing all unethical consumption, but specifically about the objectification of animals and how we relate to them. We understand as a society that we still cause harm to humans throughout our actions, but we draw the line at objectification. We would view people who wear hair from child slaves who get bred for their amazing hair as fundamentally repulsive, or who drink milk from dairy-humans who are kepts as slaves, raped and eventually slaughtered. It's not about the harm, but about how you relate to the objectification you participate in.

That's a silly strawman. Veganism fundamentally is about our relation to animals, not about harm reduction or minimization. It's about whether or not we can view animals as objects, commodify and enslave them. People in China still die of lung cancer so you can have your computer, so by extention you are causing some of that harm. The question is, does that justify using chinese people as slaves in your own country, objectify them, use their skin as clothes and their meat as food, and rape chinese women so that we can have chinese-milk. This isn't a question about utilitiarianism or harm reduction, but about what we deem as justifiable once we recognize the humanity or individuation of certain groups. As long as we will treat animals as objects, none of the deeper issues that relate to animals can be resolved. The same applied to humans. In the end, a slavor could have said "Those abolitionists are hypocrites! They think we can't use black people as slaves but look, they are happy to use animals as slaves!". Sure, technically you can say they are hypocrites, but that doesn't mean that the slavor and abolitionist are on the same level in regards to moral development. Usually when I hear people talk about moral superiority in regards to vegans it's carnists who accuse them of such, even though they themselves give off a vibe of moral superiority by claiming the vegans are so wrong and ignorant for being so radical.

Vegans are more evolved in that they have discovered that what they truly care about in an individual is consciousness. They have recognized that their empathy fundamentally extends to the individuation of others, not a specific form of individuation. Meat eaters are delusional in that they have convinced themselves they care about something other than individuation, which is not the case. In the same sense in which a racist has created a barrier between his families humanity and the humanity of one of another race, by having created a conceptual construct which distorts his perception. Meaning, one creates a distinction in reality which simply does not exist. If this illusion falls away, compassion naturally is extended. More developed in the end just means more capable of recognizing ones own subjectivity and expressing it fully. A vegan is more developed in that sense, as they have a deeper sense of their own subjectivity and are therefore capable of higher expression, as well as construction of ideological frameworks which are more conducive to the maximization of subjectivity.