Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by Jebus »

PsYcHo wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:29 pmI'm not a Vegan
Why not? You have been here long enough to have read all the main arguments. What's keeping you from taking that step?

Sorry for going off topic, but I am curious.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Because money is fungible, veganism is hypocrisy

Post by PsYcHo »

Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:58 am
PsYcHo wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:29 pmI'm not a Vegan
Why not? You have been here long enough to have read all the main arguments. What's keeping you from taking that step?

Sorry for going off topic, but I am curious.
I'd be willing to discuss it. We could start a new thread, or you could PM me.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

Had to single me out, did ya? ;)

Part of the reason is my own definition of morality; I cannot contest your(Vegans) arguments about the morality of killing sentient beings...mostly.

I avoid ham and beef, because pigs are extremely intelligent, and cows also have the ability to learn. I have killed animals,(up close and personal, not just with a gun) but I do find it cruel to kill something that would gladly let me approach it. Fish can learn (I was an avid aquarist at one point, so I saw this firsthand), but they also eat their own offspring. I see no harm in eating something that would gladly devour it's firstborn. I myself am an animal, after-all. And although I haven't eaten it in years, I would still eat venison (deer), because to kill it quickly with a rifle seems less harmful than allowing nature to take its course. (Likely being eaten by coyotes or wolves or feral dogs, which tend to rip out the stomach if the animal is too big to kill by biting its throat)

Morality isn't always black and white. And I think I've made it clear that I try to be moral, but there are things I consider morally justified (torturing someone who is proven without a doubt to have tortured an innocent person, for instance) that others do not. The tuna I ate tonight doesn't have members of it's family mourning their loss, so I feel no guilt.

The other reason is I have a partner who puts up with me and my eccentricities. They have made it clear that they have no intention to go Vegan (although they love the sly Vegan meals I sneak into our diet... :twisted: ) and I value their happiness (and my own) more than I value being more moral than most. My partner knows the reasons I go by PsYcHo......., and they keep me grounded.

I have read the arguments for going Vegan, and I agree. (mostly...I'd probably still eat fish/shrimp/oysters/most seafood) If my partner were to decide they wanted to give Veganism a chance, I'd gladly switch. I have tried to suggest it, but it's not going to happen. (13 years together, I know what battles I can win)

So in the spirit of the forum, I try to reduce harm as much as I can.

I'm not Vegan, but I encourage those who wish to be Vegan to do so, and I also try to gently sway those who are anti-Vegan to consider their personal choices, and at worst to accept Vegans, and at best to at least change their diet as much as they feel comfortable with to reduce harm.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by Jebus »

PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amFish can learn (I was an avid aquarist at one point, so I saw this firsthand), but they also eat their own offspring. I see no harm in eating something that would gladly devour it's firstborn.
What do you think about the problem of overfishing and the environmental effects of such?

What do you think of the presence of POPs in fish and the health effects of such?
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amI would still eat venison (deer), because to kill it quickly with a rifle seems less harmful than allowing nature to take its course.


What makes you so sure that a dear is not capable of living a long, happy life?
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amThe other reason is I have a partner who puts up with me and my eccentricities. They have made it clear that they have no intention to go Vegan (although they love the sly Vegan meals I sneak into our diet... :twisted: ) and I value their happiness (and my own) more than I value being more moral than most.


If you value their happiness, shouldn't you encourage them to eat foods that are more likely to keep them healthy?
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amI have read the arguments for going Vegan, and I agree. (mostly...I'd probably still eat fish/shrimp/oysters/most seafood) If my partner were to decide they wanted to give Veganism a chance, I'd gladly switch. I have tried to suggest it, but it's not going to happen. (13 years together, I know what battles I can win)


Have you showed them any of the videos that have been mentioned, such as Earthlings?
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amSo in the spirit of the forum, I try to reduce harm as much as I can.


As much as you can. Hmmm??? Are you sure about that?

I don't understand the argument that the diet of one's partner is relevant. I have lived with the same person almost ten years and although she has made great dietary improvements she is not vegan. I cook my food and she cooks hers. It's no different from when I used to live alone.
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 am I also try to gently sway those who are anti-Vegan to consider their personal choices, and at worst to accept Vegans, and at best to at least change their diet as much as they feel comfortable with to reduce harm.
I encourage people to step outside of their comfort zone as the comfort zone is often a very harmful place (both to themselves and to others).
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I thought a big part of your reason was your job, which had you always on the move?
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amFish can learn (I was an avid aquarist at one point, so I saw this firsthand), but they also eat their own offspring. I see no harm in eating something that would gladly devour it's firstborn.
This is perhaps consistent with your views on humans who do bad things (torturing a murderer or pedophile being OK), but where's the line?

If you do something bad to a bad person, do you become a bad person, and is it then OK to do something bad to you?

We've all done bad things at some point. For all of the faults of the Bible, Jesus did have a point about those who were without sin casting the first stone.

It's very hard to create a consistent or useful ethical foundation when you systematically devalue anybody who has done something wrong, because it's something the propagates exponentially, and makes everybody OK to torture short of new born babies.

I would say it is right to kill murderers to keep them from killing others if that must be done, but it's still wrong to cause them unnecessary pain; we should not torture people unless it's saving lives.
If you're eating invasive species like lion-fish, that could be right because you are protecting others from their harmful behaviors, but eating native species or growing fish in order to kill them would be unnecessary harm.
Lionfish: http://www.reef.org/lionfish
Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am What do you think about the problem of overfishing and the environmental effects of such?
I think Jebus is right that the environmental arguments against fishing (not against rope grown oysters, but against fish) are quite strong.

Wild caught fish have issues of sustainable population, and farmed fish have similar issues to farmed mammals in terms of pollution and resource waste.

Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am What makes you so sure that a dear is not capable of living a long, happy life?
To back this up:
There are studies on this demonstrating the myth of predators. Adult deer are virtually immune to predation except by human hunters (and when a Doe is killed, her fawns then become vulnerable)
Here's one link discussing the issue briefly.
http://wildlife.org/wsb-study-coyote-predation-not-the-main-source-of-declining-deer-in-s-c/

It's mostly just the babies who get killed by predators, for adults it's mostly hunters and cars.

I don't doubt that hunted meat is a little more ethical than farmed meat, because they at least seem to lead better lives before they're killed, but there's no reason to support it.

Remember also that the numbers are artificially inflated by wildlife management cutting down forest to create clearings to feed the deer and increase the number of hunting permits they can sell. It's still a business. It's a myth that exploding populations in themselves are a problem generally, and in rare cases they are (like near cities) they can be solved with birth control instead of hunting (which puts humans at risk too).

Woman recently shot by hunter:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/24/new-york-woman-shot-dead-hunter-deer-sunset

Wildlife contraceptives summary on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_contraceptive
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am
What do you think about the problem of overfishing and the environmental effects of such?

What do you think of the presence of POPs in fish and the health effects of such?
Overfishing is getting to be beyond problematic. I find farmed fish to be just as good (taste wise) as "wild caught".

POPs in fish is going to continue to get worse (especially in larger predatory fish, like..tuna..) but with the amount of toxic materials constantly spewed forth into the atmosphere, and the chemicals farmers use to keep their crops pest free, I'd say eating a fish is a gamble akin to eating a carrot, poison wise.
Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am
What makes you so sure that a dear is not capable of living a long, happy life?


I'm sure a deer in it's prime can live a happy life, but I'm referring to old deer. I have never seen a deer with gray in its pelt. I know Brimstone made a point about it is mostly young deer who die from predators, but from watching many, many nature shows, predators single out the young and the infirm. (Old or injured)
Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am
If you value their happiness, shouldn't you encourage them to eat foods that are more likely to keep them healthy?.


After more than a decade together, I know which battles I can win, and which I cannot. And I have tried.

Much like any debate, there are certain people you can sway a bit, some you can get to agree with you, and some that no argument (however valid) will work.

They won't watch the videos past the first part. I'm not going to push the issue, because ..... I'm a challenging person to live with (you've seen my post, picture that in real life.) and they accept me for who I am, flaws and all. So I'll just keep making that Indian food they love soo much. ;)
Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amSo in the spirit of the forum, I try to reduce harm as much as I can.


As much as you can. Hmmm??? Are you sure about that?


Maybe not as much as I personally could. But I sure as hell have changed waaayyy more than I ever would have considered before I joined this forum. I'd likely be eating a bacon wrapped porkchop and arguing about video games right now.

If reduction of harm is the main goal, take all positive changes as a win. I only got interested in Veganism because TVA made some videos about another topic I was researching. If when I had joined the forum I felt that people were pushing me to go Vegan, I'd likely have said some ..not-nice replies, then went out for a bacon cheeseburger.

That's why I encourage people who are considering changing their diets, and I try to be nice(ish) to people who only come here to see what asinine things the Vegans say. I came here to see what asinine things the Vegans would say, and I was....surprised.

Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am I don't understand the argument that the diet of one's partner is relevant. I have lived with the same person almost ten years and although she has made great dietary improvements she is not vegan. I cook my food and she cooks hers. It's no different from when I used to live alone.
We do occasionally make our own meals, but we tend to eat together at least once daily (supper) and we often entertain guests as well. (This is a new development, seeing as how we've just changed careers.)

And...they don't cook well.
Jebus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 am I also try to gently sway those who are anti-Vegan to consider their personal choices, and at worst to accept Vegans, and at best to at least change their diet as much as they feel comfortable with to reduce harm.
I encourage people to step outside of their comfort zone as the comfort zone is often a very harmful place (both to themselves and to others).
I agree, but there is a reason it's called a comfort zone. And oftentimes, if you push someone too hard, they will retreat even more forcefully to their comfort zone, and be less willing to entertain the notion of ever leaving it again.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:52 pm I thought a big part of your reason was your job, which had you always on the move?
That was a large part, and I do eat more ethically when I prepare my own food. But I also cook for both of us, and guests, so I try to accommodate everyone.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:52 pm
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:10 amFish can learn (I was an avid aquarist at one point, so I saw this firsthand), but they also eat their own offspring. I see no harm in eating something that would gladly devour it's firstborn.
This is perhaps consistent with your views on humans who do bad things (torturing a murderer or pedophile being OK), but where's the line?

If you do something bad to a bad person, do you become a bad person, and is it then OK to do something bad to you?
The line is blurred, much as if you mix black and white. I try to find a suitable shade of grey; perhaps not always the best path.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:52 pm I would say it is right to kill murderers to keep them from killing others if that must be done, but it's still wrong to cause them unnecessary pain; we should not torture people unless it's saving lives.
But to torture someone to save lives is also unethical; the old "Does the end justify the means?" debate.

I concede torturing an evil person is unethical, as it serves no purpose but vengeance, but I'd still do it. I am a PsYcHo afterall..

First, do no harm.

I think at least 70% of people in prison do not deserve to be there. 10% should be there for quite a while. The other 20% could be converted to fertilizer if only it was allowed. (It would likely be the only positive thing they have ever done.)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by Jebus »

I have nothing to add. I really hope you do make the transition sooner rather than later as I find your arguments lacking. I think it's a case of cognitive dissonance.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:43 amThe other 20% could be converted to fertilizer if only it was allowed. (It would likely be the only positive thing they have ever done.)
That's actually an excellent idea. I've been thinking about the best way of disposing myself but perhaps that's a topic for another thread.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:20 am but with the amount of toxic materials constantly spewed forth into the atmosphere, and the chemicals farmers use to keep their crops pest free, I'd say eating a fish is a gamble akin to eating a carrot, poison wise.
Not so, due to bioaccumulation and biomagnification.

The "higher on the food chain" something is, the more toxins accumulate in it from what it eats. Eating as low as possible (vegetables, or algae in the ocean) is your best bet by far.

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:20 amI'm sure a deer in it's prime can live a happy life, but I'm referring to old deer. I have never seen a deer with gray in its pelt.
Well, hunters typically kill them before that happens. You would likely see a lot more without hunters.
If we could get rid of car collisions too (which will happen eventually with self-driving cars with better night vision and no distraction) they'd live even longer.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:20 amI know Brimstone made a point about it is mostly young deer who die from predators, but from watching many, many nature shows, predators single out the young and the infirm. (Old or injured)
Well, nature shows aren't the reality of the environments we're talking about; large predators are pretty much extinct; there are only a few bears and cougars. Thus adults are basically like elephants; immune to predation (except for humans) and just food for scavengers when they die.
The predators (like coyotes) that exist now can pretty much only target fawns.

But let's say they were brought back (although we're probably all safer without them):
Predators target the very old and injured, but a deer could live over a decade before getting old enough not to be able to run away.

Do you think being shot by a hunter at four years of age in more or less the prime of your life is better than being killed by a predator at perhaps as old as 14 once they can't run anymore?
By comparison, would you rather be shot at 30 or killed with slightly more pain (but still pretty quickly) at 80?

Don't get me wrong, hunting is probably a tenth as unethical as buying meat from a grocery store where the animal makes it to an age of around two, and lives a much more miserable life; hunters can certainly be allies when it comes to animal ethics and advocating the lesser of evils... but I don't think we can argue it's totally benign to lose half or more of your potential life. It sucks for the deer.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:43 am But to torture someone to save lives is also unethical; the old "Does the end justify the means?" debate.
The torturing is wrong, but the saving of lives is right. It's a question of which weighs more heavily.

Ends can justify the means, but due to human bias in order to do that the ends should be MUCH higher stakes than the means, otherwise we might convince ourselves that something is OK when in reality we misjudged the situation.

A sure thing of saving a hundred lives by torturing a terrorists for two minutes?

Maybe... or maybe torture is ineffective, and maybe it's the wrong guy, and maybe the bomb wouldn't have gone off anyway since a lot of these home made explosives are duds, or maybe...

At a certain point, the odd start to tip due to uncertainty. Life is very often a chaotic function.

The problem in justifying bad means with good ends is human uncertainty, more so than the actual logic.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:43 amI concede torturing an evil person is unethical, as it serves no purpose but vengeance, but I'd still do it. I am a PsYcHo afterall..
Well, as long as we can agree it's technically wrong to harm fish even if they're baby eating monsters. :D
Probably about like spiders, I imagine.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

Jebus wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:16 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:43 amThe other 20% could be converted to fertilizer if only it was allowed. (It would likely be the only positive thing they have ever done.)
That's actually an excellent idea. I've been thinking about the best way of disposing myself but perhaps that's a topic for another thread.
https://greenburialcouncil.org/home/what-is-green-burial/ That would make an interesting topic.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
Post Reply