A Discussion About Vegans & Their “Internet Debaters”

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

ⒶMP3083
This video seems to imply that animals are property. What’re your thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da9okhi8hjI

Abbot
Disagree with that part in particular

ⒶMP3083
I’m still watching it. Morality is preference, according to Heretic.

Abbot
As how do you certifi what is and is not conscious, what is your criteria for agency(etc)?

ⒶMP3083 > Abbot
The one and only criteria (principle) is to do no harm.

BastardChris
Any argument that attempts to justify enslaving “animals” can be turned around to justify enslaving the arguer.

For example: If I say I need to eat animals to survive then I have forfeit my own life to anyone that believes they need to eat me to survive.

ⒶMP3083 > BastardChris
They’ll just try to weasel out of it. Good observation, nonetheless.

Debo
Do vegans have a problem with eating an animal that would have died from natural causes?

bbblackwell > Debo
If you’re vegan all year long, what on Earth would make you eat a dying animal on the rare occasion that the opportunity arose? Hahahaha

The answer is you don’t own them while they’re living, regardless of their condition. If they’re dead, the carcass no longer has a rightful owner, so have at it, but it’s still not part of your species-specific diet, so what on Earth would incline someone to put that rotting mess in their mouth?

Debo > bbblackwell
Survival perhaps. It’s interesting that the problem vegans seem to have is not carnism but how the animals are treated and how they die. Since it’s okay to eat an animal if it dies from natural causes. Is man not a part of nature?

ⒶMP3083
Many vegans, it seems, do not derive their veganism from first principles. They go vegan “for the animals” — so they say.

bbblackwell > Debo
Well, what’s “OK” mean? It always comes down to clearly defining morality. Once we do that, nearly all of the innumerable specific questions about this-and-that situation melt away.

By all rational measures, flesh is not part of man’s species-specific diet. That means it is out of accord with nature for him to eat it. So yes, man is part of nature, and that’s why he should eat a whole-food vegan diet. It’s no coincidence that it’s also a moral imperative that he not exploit others to nourish himself. Morality is nothing if not alignment with nature.

Rare survival circumstances (just like statist questions about roads and defense) are not relevant to the broader conversation, and are only worth investigating as a matter of fine-tuning, after one has understood and embraced the core principles of abolitionism.

Guss TR
Filthy really irritated me with that video. And in the livestream he had where he briefly addressed the comments, he seemed to ignore the ones that were the most critical.

BastardChris
There seem to be a flavor of so-called anarchists that define anarchy as: “No rulers over me—yet I may rule over others”. They seem to believe they are supperior to those that they rule and thus employ the same logic as tyrants. It’s a shame.

ⒶMP3083 > BastardChris
They’re living in the realm of preferences, as Dave Smith put it. They’re still statists — they only see anarchism as a convenience of their preferences. When anarchy doesn’t work for them anymore, it’s only a matter of time ’til they crawl back to muh gubment.

Sound familiar? It should. Many vegans fall under a similar category. They’re vegans because:

A) strictly for dietary purposes, or
B) it’s the in-thing and they’ve been more or less influenced to go vegan by their peers, or
C) it’s for the animals.

Seems that none of the above reasons are standing on moral principles. Is it any surprise then that vegans who fall under any of those letters have reverted, or likely to revert to carnism again?

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
Hey, you and I are very familiar with that morality-as-preference argument… Few better, as we used to make a strong case for it ourselves.

But like any veteran of a particular field, we can discern the mistakes of the less experienced quickly and completely.

Now, instead of holding fast to that argument, the next step is to say, ”Hold on… I’m arguing that murder and torture of innocent creatures is perfectly fine… Something seems off about this… Maybe these compassionate people are actually on to something but can’t explain it well. Let me contemplate this deeply and see how they may be right instead of focusing on how they’re wrong just because they failed to meet their burden of proof.”

But this requires the heart to inform you that something is off. If you’re willingly deaf to its calling because you’re a hyper-intellectualized, left-brain-imbalanced, academic philosophy egghead, then nothing’s gonna clue you in, and you can go down in history with the Hitchens fanboys and Mises economists as a brilliant adolescent without a shred of common sense.

ⒶMP3083 > bbblackwell
I remember those days. haha

Remember how difficult it was to speak with these guys? You can’t even have a discussion with them. It’s always “debate”. All they want do is back you into a corner with the goal of finding a logical inconsistency. That’s fine and all, but the difficulty is them wanting to play it their way.

If I were an intellectual at my current age (I’m not, LOL), and got a notification from one of these guys challenging me to a debate, I’d accept, but they would need to wait to debate me until they reach the age of 36, that’s when I stopped eating meat. Hopefully by then they’d have matured mentally. I’m talking about the young vegan Youtube “debaters”, most of whom are in their 20’s.

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
Hahaha, yeah, really. Their exuberance following shallow drafts from the Pierian spring makes them reckless. It’s a form of power-intoxication, and they are loath to relinquish it, often deliberately ignoring information that validly challenges their papier-mâché wisdom.

I’m enjoying my conversation with “Tom COVID” in the #statists-vs-anarchists channel for the very reason that, despite coming to the conversation with an alternate view, he has been fair and seemingly honest, without hard-selling an agenda and disagreeing just for the sake of it.

I’m hoping I’ve read him correctly, as it’s very refreshing, and makes one feel as though there may be an actual conversation happening.

Join our Discord community!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

1st BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
3rd BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3883/
FACEBOOKhttp://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s