Hypocrisy I noticed amongst vegans

[brimstoneSalad]

I agree, public transit is great. Particularly electric public transit,

I think more people should take the bus actually. The more people that take the bus, the less traffic, since drivers who use a 4-seater car are usually the only one in the car. (Maybe invest in a Smart Car?) This, other than being an annoyance, can contribute to pollution and shit like that. But for some reason, people are reluctant to take the bus to work.

I think because it takes longer. First you have to wait for the bus (usually outside in the cold, hot, or rain) and then there are all the stops the bus makes. It's possible, of course, but I can understand why people prefer to drive.

Cities probably need to invest in better bus stops, I think it would take away a large part of the reason people avoid buses, and play more entertaining TV at the bus stops and in the buses.

[Red]

I think because it takes longer. First you have to wait for the bus (usually outside in the cold, hot, or rain) and then there are all the stops the bus makes. It's possible, of course, but I can understand why people prefer to drive.

That's a good point. I think another reason is that since it takes longer, people will have to get up earlier in the morning, which I will agree can be a bit of a pain in the ass. Another one, which I will admit is a bit absurd, is that people don't want to be viewed as poor.

Cities probably need to invest in better bus stops, I think it would take away a large part of the reason people avoid buses, and play more entertaining TV at the bus stops and in the buses.

I think about 1 billion is invested in public transport, but I guess they can use the money more wisely. Now that they're starting to create automatic vehicles, they can lay off all of their workers and invest more in that kind of stuff if you ask me.

[Cortez48]

@EqaALLity
I am super pissed off at the moment, as I spent a lot of time to write a reply to you, and then this stupid site lost all what I have typed after I pressed 'submit' after some inactivity. I'd better press ctrl+c next time...
So I started over and have now written a shorter reply to you; I hope I haven't forgot to mention anything...

What if there is a person who would volunteer for torture, though (a masochist?)? Would it still be wrong, even if that person wants to be tortured? How could it be wrong if that's what that person wants?
If you agree that it would be moral to torture someone who genuinely wants to be tortured, then you have to concede that the fundamental reason why things are right or wrong is due to interests. It's just that, in practice, people usually want to avoid suffering, so utilitarianism usually seems to make sense.

Even if there is no person who wants to be tortured, the torture is wrong because the people don't want to be tortured, not because torture makes them suffer in and of itself.
Every person has a certain limit and can endure torture only up to certain point, even masochists (who only gain pleasure when the torture is durable). Try to image if this person would be deprivated from sleep, be starved and dehydrated, be burned and be solitary confined all at the same time. This is what I am trying to say.

Are you religious? I'm just not sure why else you would believe an embryo or a fetus is capable of having an interest. And I thought you believed morality wasn't based on interests?
I am an agnost, who inclines towards atheism. Personally I think it is kind of narrow-minded of you to think that only religious people would be pro-life. My pro-life stance came from a logical, secular deduction. And no, I do not believe morality is based on interests. If it were, it would not be immoral to kill a person who currently doesn't have any interests/preferences in life.

From my understanding, a fetus cannot be sentient until it has brainwaves, and it doesn't have brainwaves until a significant amount of time into the pregnancy.
I think I addressed earlier that I think 'sentience' is a loose, useless term when it comes to abortion due to my example of 'congenital analgesia'.

If a life has never been sentient, then it really can't have any moral value. It's like saying that it's wrong to kill plants.
Why does it matter if a lifeform hasn't developed a brain/brain functions in the first place? Do you know that a person with a concussion temporarily loses his brain functions? So would it therefore not be immoral to kill a person who has no interests/preferences in life and has a concussion?

I haven't said until now that I think abortion is also wrong because it perverts ones own mind. Parents from a younger age (down to 20) have the lowest chance of getting a child with a miscarriage, stillbirth, psychosis and many other (physical/mental) abnormalities. This lowers both the well-being of the child as the parents.
I also noticed that those who don't want children and want to have abortions, will start hating children in some cases and thus change their own values/norms in the process. From a utilitarian consequentialistic point of view, this is another reason why having casual, consensual, non-sterlized (heterosexual) sex is not the best choice one can do. This is why I would at least advocate for sterlization/vasectomy/abstenation/masturbation rather than anticonception/abortion, because anticonception is never 100% conception proof. This is also why consensual, non-sterilized casual (heterosexual) sex (without the parents wanting children) goes entirely against veganism, which seeks to exclude inducing pain, suffering and killing of animals as far as possible.
There are also cases of women who have deep feelings of guilt and shame after having had an abortion. When they get a child at a later point of life, they view the child as less valuable, see less beautiful potential in a child and feel like they have murdered someone (which by definition, is correct and a fact).

Also, do you believe that abortion is the same as murder (like a lot of religious people do)?
Well, abortion by definition is murder. Let me give you two definitions of murder:
- ''The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.'' Source: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=ch ... definition
-''Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'' Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

As an unborn child has human DNA, and the parents are humans, the zygote/embryo/fetus is by definition a human being. And as the unborn child gets killed in the process of abortion by another human being, abortion is murder by definition.

It doesn't matter if the person is religious or not. It would be a logical fallacy to base facts on the (absense of) religious views someone has.

If you do, why do you support abortion in cases of rape? What's worse, rape or murder? I'm glad that you do support a woman's right to have an abortion in cases of rape, I'm just wondering what your rationale is.
and
There's nothing wrong with not getting sterilized to have sex. Isn't that a little excessive? Unless you REALLY don't want to get pregnant, just use birth control. We have a teen pregnancy epidemic in America (*cough cough* because of conservative culture *cough cough*), because teenagers are often misinformed about sex and don't bother to use protection. A lot of people in general are misinformed about birth control, like they figure they won't get pregnant because they're on their period or something. What about them?
I think rape is always worse than murder, due to the severe emotional damage one inflicts on another, and indirect damage to the potential unborn child. And there are cases in which ultimately two persons die (maternal death/mortality), even though this almost doesn't happen anymore in modern, developed countries. From a deontological point of view, I say that rape (by definition) is always wrong. This still is in concordance with my utilitarian consequentialistic views as it is always the worst thing/choice to do.

I do have to point out though that there are cases of women who kept their children after being raped, incest and young girls getting pregnant. I admire them for their humility. This is why part of me things abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe medicinal cases and young girls getting pregnant is wrong, and another of me thinks it might be the lesser of two evils. I also have to point out that I think that finance as an excuse for abortion is pretty much always bullshit, and also about people who want to 'treat their boy/girl like a princess', as this makes the child rather vain, envious, angry and greedy, rather than a person with general virtues.
Also considering personal psychological (problems) of certain women, I think abortion at cases of rape should be looked at individually. I don't have a clear answer about whether abortion in rape-cases is always wrong, but part of me inclines to the pro-life side.

This is why I advocate for sterlization/vasectomy/abstenation/masturbation rather than anticonception/abortion, because anticonception is never 100% conception proof. So anticonception is not the best thing one can do due to utilitarian consequentialism.

[brimstoneSalad]

@EqaALLity
I am super pissed off at the moment, as I spent a lot of time to write a reply to you, and then this stupid site lost all what I have typed after I pressed 'submit' after some inactivity. I'd better press ctrl+c next time...

Or the back button. Any modern browser will remember the content of your form. Chrome, for example. So when you hit the timeout page, you hit back, and all of your stuff is still there.
Of course it's safest to write your post in an automatically saving word processor.

[EquALLity]

@EqaALLity
I am super pissed off at the moment, as I spent a lot of time to write a reply to you, and then this stupid site lost all what I have typed after I pressed 'submit' after some inactivity. I'd better press ctrl+c next time...
So I started over and have now written a shorter reply to you; I hope I haven't forgot to mention anything...

Yeah, it really sucks when that happens.

It's fine, your reply is still pretty long. I actually wouldn't mind if it were a bit shorter...

Every person has a certain limit and can endure torture only up to certain point, even masochists (who only gain pleasure when the torture is durable). Try to image if this person would be deprivated from sleep, be starved and dehydrated, be burned and be solitary confined all at the same time. This is what I am trying to say.

I guess, physically, pretty much nobody could endure that after awhile. But the reason why it's wrong is because of interests.

The fact that you have to say nobody would want to do that proves that, at its core, morality is about interests. If it was just about pain being wrong, you wouldn't have to make that argument.

I am an agnost, who inclines towards atheism. Personally I think it is kind of narrow-minded of you to think that only religious people would be pro-life. My pro-life stance came from a logical, secular deduction. And no, I do not believe morality is based on interests. If it were, it would not be immoral to kill a person who currently doesn't have any interests/preferences in life.

You mean an agnostic, right?

I wasn't actually assuming your anti-abortion stance (most people against abortion ARE religious nuts who are also very conservative and generally not in favor of things like universal healthcare, which isn't very pro-life) comes from religion, I was asking if the part about thinking and embryo is capable of interests comes from religion.

I've never heard an atheist make the argument that an embryo/fetus is sentient, at least not until after a long time into pregnancy. It's mostly something religious people believe, because they believe in souls.

There's no reason to believe, according to the science, that a fetus has interests until a very long time into pregnancy.

I think I addressed earlier that I think 'sentience' is a loose, useless term when it comes to abortion due to my example of 'congenital analgesia'.

I'm defining sentience as the ability to have interests (because what can you violate in a person besides an interest?). People who can't feel pain have interests, they just don't feel physical pain.

Why does it matter if a lifeform hasn't developed a brain/brain functions in the first place? Do you know that a person with a concussion temporarily loses his brain functions? So would it therefore not be immoral to kill a person who has no interests/preferences in life and has a concussion?

There's a difference between someone who has already become sentient and is temporarily non-sentient vs a non-sentient lifeform.

If I went into a coma and was killed, well, maybe someday I could've come out of that coma. I already am a sentient being, I just had a 'pause'.

A fetus has never been sentient. A non-sentient being has no interests or desires, so it really isn't any more morally valuable than a plant.

I haven't said until now that I think abortion is also wrong because it perverts ones own mind. Parents from a younger age (down to 20) have the lowest chance of getting a child with a miscarriage, stillbirth, psychosis and many other (physical/mental) abnormalities. This lowers both the well-being of the child as the parents.
I also noticed that those who don't want children and want to have abortions, will start hating children in some cases and thus change their own values/norms in the process. From a utilitarian consequentialistic point of view, this is another reason why having casual, consensual, non-sterlized (heterosexual) sex is not the best choice one can do. This is why I would at least advocate for sterlization/vasectomy/abstenation/masturbation rather than anticonception/abortion, because anticonception is never 100% conception proof. This is also why consensual, non-sterilized casual (heterosexual) sex (without the parents wanting children) goes entirely against veganism, which seeks to exclude inducing pain, suffering and killing of animals as far as possible.

Are you saying that younger people tend to have abortions, and then become pregnant later in life, and being pregnant later in life is less moral because of higher developmental risks in the children?
If so, that seems awfully picky.
I don't think the harm done to women by forcing them to carry and have children outweighs the harm to children born with developmental issues. I don't see abortion as unethical (in almost all situations, anyway), so I don't generally have a problem with miscarriages either. Stillbirth is a lot more sad, because that is killing an actual sentient being, but the being is still only marginally sentient, and I think the harm done to women by banning abortion outweighs that.

This doesn't apply to you, but I really am annoyed by meat-eaters who are against abortion. A three-year old human child is about as sentient as a chicken. They want to ban women from having abortions of potentially sometimes marginally sentient lifeforms, and they torture and kill much more sentient animals. It's disgusting.

Contraception and sterilization actually both aren't foolproof (pretty much nothing is foolproof). You don't need to get sterilized to have sex as a vegan. Sterilization is really expensive, and if you change your mind you might not be able to reverse it (not to mention the cost).

There are also cases of women who have deep feelings of guilt and shame after having had an abortion. When they get a child at a later point of life, they view the child as less valuable, see less beautiful potential in a child and feel like they have murdered someone (which by definition, is correct and a fact).

About 95% of women in America (you're from the Netherlands, and I don't know if you really follow American politics, but the country is pretty much completely divided on this, leaning very slightly pro-choice) don't regret having an abortion.

The reason why some do is because of misinformation, and, no offense... but misinformation that you're kinda spreading right now.

Just having an abortion doesn't make women feel guilty, it's anti-abortion propaganda.

Well, abortion by definition is murder. Let me give you two definitions of murder:
- ''The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.'' Source: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=ch ... definition
-''Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'' Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

As an unborn child has human DNA, and the parents are humans, the zygote/embryo/fetus is by definition a human being. And as the unborn child gets killed in the process of abortion by another human being, abortion is murder by definition.

It doesn't matter if the person is religious or not. It would be a logical fallacy to base facts on the (absense of) religious views someone has.

That's not really a fair way of framing it.
A 'human being' isn't just being used to refer to human DNA. 'Human being' implies person-hood, and person-hood is what we're debating.

Like I said above, I was just asking about your religious views due to what you were saying about embryos/fetuses have interests.

I think rape is always worse than murder, due to the severe emotional damage one inflicts on another, and indirect damage to the potential unborn child. And there are cases in which ultimately two persons die (maternal death/mortality), even though this almost doesn't happen anymore in modern, developed countries. From a deontological point of view, I say that rape (by definition) is always wrong. This still is in concordance with my utilitarian consequentialistic views as it is always the worst thing/choice to do.

Wow, really? You think rape is worse than murder? I definitely don't agree with that.
Rape is obviously a horrible and traumatizing experience, but being dead means NO experience.

Your morality isn't really consistent. If you're a utilitarian, you can't believe anything is ALWAYS wrong. You can't mix deontology and consequentialism, because they are contradictory world views.

I do have to point out though that there are cases of women who kept their children after being raped, incest and young girls getting pregnant. I admire them for their humility. This is why part of me things abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe medicinal cases and young girls getting pregnant is wrong, and another of me thinks it might be the lesser of two evils. I also have to point out that I think that finance as an excuse for abortion is pretty much always bullshit, and also about people who want to 'treat their boy/girl like a princess', as this makes the child rather vain, envious, angry and greedy, rather than a person with general virtues.
Also considering personal psychological (problems) of certain women, I think abortion at cases of rape should be looked at individually. I don't have a clear answer about whether abortion in rape-cases is always wrong, but part of me inclines to the pro-life side.

This is why I advocate for sterlization/vasectomy/abstenation/masturbation rather than anticonception/abortion, because anticonception is never 100% conception proof. So anticonception is not the best thing one can do due to utilitarian consequentialism.

I am worried about pregnant teenagers who don't get abortions. They are essentially ruining their academic and career futures. If I got pregnant, I would get an abortion ASAP. I want to go to college and have a future. I couldn't do that if I had to raise a child. That would financially and academically destroy any teenager who wants to go to college.

[Jebus]

Just a point as I think some of you are a bit off on your assessment of bicycle energy expenditure. Don't assume that the kilometers spent from moving the bicycle to point A to point B will result in a higher food consumption. This would only be true if someone who never exercises rides his bike because he has no other means of transport. Most people who take the bike to work spend that much time less in the gym after work.

[miniboes]

Just a point as I think some of you are a bit off on your assessment of bicycle energy expenditure. Don't assume that the kilometers spent from moving the bicycle to point A to point B will result in a higher food consumption. This would only be true if someone who never exercises rides his bike because he has no other means of transport. Most people who take the bike to work spend that much time less in the gym after work.

That's true. An important point here is that human energy consumption, at least to a certain degree, is a good energy investment. We want people to excercise, even though they may eat more. We want people to build muscle, even though they will burn more calories. The public health benefits, according to virtually everyone, outshine the drawback of energy consumption.

By the way, we should factor in the energy production cost of electric cars vs bicycles vs public transit. A bicycle is far cheaper to produce than an electric car.

It might indeed be interesting to start a thread to figure out what the optimal methods of transport are. Of course, one solution is not for every situation.

[Jebus]

By the way, we should factor in the energy production cost of electric cars vs bicycles vs public transit. A bicycle is far cheaper to produce than an electric car

'

I don't know if this is true but I've heard that the every expended during the production of a car exceeds that of it's lifetime usage and that it is greener to buy a used petrol driven car than a new electric car.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know if this is true but I've heard that the every expended during the production of a car exceeds that of it's lifetime usage and that it is greener to buy a used petrol driven car than a new electric car.

Don't know how I missed this.
From virgin materials compared to energy used by the car's first owner this may be true, but materials have scrap value and cars are recycled. Also, there is a used erlectric car market.
Is doesn't take all that much gasoline to melt a car. We could calculate it.