Freegan Practices Explainer and Open Letter to Vegan Advocates (New Channel Video)

[NonZeroSum]

----

Hey all, I planned to keep this partially under wraps for a big reveal, but I don't have a lot of time and could use people's suggested additions, edits, and feedback if you're interested in the subject. It's going up on the Philosophical Vegan channel and can mention your name in the credits.

Resources:

Freeganism - Vegan Video Resource Library
https://activistjourneys.wordpress.com/freeganism/

Freeganism - Philosophical Vegan Wiki
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Freeganism

This is where I'm up to:

Sections

Almost done:

• Intro
• Definition of Freeganism & History
• Pro-Freegan consequentialists; Unnatural Vegan, ModVegan & Ethologic
• Anti-Freegan consequentialists; LayVegan and Footsoldier
• Contrast with Greece's potato movement
• Consequentialist wrap up

Outline sketched:

• Liam Anthony on asking servers to change gloves before they start making his vegan food.
• Contrast with Feedback and Society of St. Andrews
• Virtue ethics wrap up
• Gary Francione on not eating food cooked on the same grill.
• Contrast with APV who also sees merit in treating some duties to equality as a rule
• Deontology wrap up
• Eisel Mazard on meat eating being cannibalism
• Contrast with my interest in the Situationists concept of psycho-geographies,
• Nihilist wrap up
• Video Summary

Other jobs:

• Coming up with a snappy title and enticing thumbnail
• Any ideas for animations that can jazz up the video
• Sourcing clips - Definitely feel like done this now, aha, got all the videos mentioned here on the desktop ready to go if choose to use them.


__________________

Intro



[Starting out the video introducing the context, Edwins Generation and questioning whether had done something wrong within veganism by still enjoying taste of meat and preventing it going to waste.]



Throughout the video we’re going to look at the arguments against freeganism about how it might be internally inconsistent, whether that’s because it’s actors don’t consistently act in a way to challenge supply and demand, as they say they wish to. Or because they don’t sufficiently feel the requisite shame attached to the act which cost so many lives in our previous lives as meat eaters.



At the same time I intend to give counter examples of freeganism in action correlating with the same philosophical tendencies, as in a lot of the cases the critique simply has a short sighted idea of what being freegan means, and I don’t want it to appear that the critique is representative of their entire school of philosophy.


____________

Definition of Freeganism & History

For starters let’s quickly give the popular definition of freegan:

[Voice over screen capture video]

a person who rejects consumerism and seeks to help the environment by reducing waste, especially by retrieving and using discarded food and other goods.

Ok so main point as shown in the picture here:

Origin: early 21st century: blend of free and vegan.

That’s also interesting 21st century, I know the biggest group advocating against food waste, Food not Bombs have been around a lot longer than that.

Let’s look up one more definition:

Freeganism is a practice and ideology of limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources, particularly through recovering wasted goods like food. The word "freegan" is a portmanteau of "free" and "vegan".

So some anti-capitalist sentiments flowing through much of the movement's origin that makes people wary of identifying with the term, what I’m promoting here could be called freegan-lite, but I think the mainstream image has taken on a different much broader use since then and will continue to change over time.

Let’s just quickly look at the history. Yes so; “The word ‘freegan’ itself was allegedly invented in 1994 by Keith McHenry, the co-founder of Food Not Bombs.” And popularised in the 2000s.



Food not bombs grew out of the 60s, ban the bomb demonstrations against the building of more nuclear weapons and ratcheting up of tensions between the two superpowers US and Russia fighting a proxy war with each other in places such as Vietnam and Afghanistan.

So now we’re all on the same page, let’s look at present day advocates for veganism, who are for and against freeganism…


_______________

Pro-Freegan consequentialists; Unnatural Vegan & ModVegan



Unnatural Vegan put out a great video discussing the coherency of labels, questioning in reality where is the harm?



ModVegan also in the same vein discussed vegan gatekeeper syndrome and the future of the vegan movement.


______________

Anti-Freegan consequentialists; LayVegan and Footsoldier

Okay back to the first vegan’s critique:



LayVegan put out a great breakdown of Edwins Generation video, acknowledging the good freegans do for advocating against the wasteful system of meat production, distribution and consumption. I do want to push back on one thing he said in the video which is:

"You're right, and do you know what would save even more money and methane emissions from being released into the atmosphere, not visiting restaurants, you know like actual freegans."

As I said before I think this stereotype is the reason Edwin and others are scared away from identifying his actions as freegan, but is this really a good thing? I recommend reading our article on all the actions that being freegan can encompass, but are not mandatory:

Freeganism - Philosophical Vegan Wiki
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Freeganism

"The interest in stripping back and living as minimally as possible can be seen to be more synonymous with Zero Waste. However, Freeganism also concerns itself with how society's most abundant, most energy intensive products are poorly managed. In this way, Freeganism and Zero Waste have a similar consumer activist mindset that can mean taking steps to lead the way in changing consumer practices."

Main point being, very few in the Zero Waste lifestyle actually consider that they’ve cut out all harmful waste from their life, but it’s something they’re working towards, we shouldn’t scoff at someone who cares about food waste but also felt it was important to go to a restaurant with their family or friends.



Quick note, LayVegan also liked this comment, which proposes we don’t pick up the bad habit of eating other’s leftovers and that the solution will come in the form of energy captured from landfills. I find these arguments to be unconvincing; I think they make vegans look like we’re grasping at straws to defend an irrational puritanical form of veganism.

Whilst becoming more and more efficient at recycling resources is definitely a priority as a society, I don't however think a good fix would be that we carry on wasting at the rate we are, but that it gets burnt off in some slightly more environmentally friendly way than being buried. Although calorie counting is a problem for some, which might lead some to want to avoid the habit, it doesn't detract from it being a good carbon negative act for most.



FootSoldier also put out a video where in response to UV asking people not to fear monger against freeganism because it’s a lifestyle that doesn’t contribute to animal exploitation and saves food waste he says this:

If anyone who doesn't know about freeganism, it’s essentially dumpster diving for food because either you're too poor or too stingy to actually buy food and so you just get it out of bins.

Really great work staying objective, you've just taken a stereotype of the most prolific image or action people relate to freegans of dumpster diving and declared that "the definition." He goes on:

The thing is I've got a bit of a problem with this, so situation one there's lots of food being chucked away, and it’s just really wasteful when it could go to feeding people who need the food, well then the system should be addressed better like in Berlin we've got something called food sharing and you get a little membership card and you can go around shops and take all the food that they're going to chuck out, you can just take it, it is really well adopted and really well done in Berlin and so places like in America and in Canada or wherever that they should probably adopt similar schemes, that's a much better solution that people dumpster diving.

But if you do have enough money to shop, but you're a freegan because you sort of have some sort of objection to the food system, then you're an idiot because I can buy a really good organic food around the corner that has been produced like really well at the highest possible quality standards, why wouldn't I give my money to the farmers who've worked hard to grow this food and to the people who have worked hard to distribute this food for me, I'm perfectly happy paying for that.

So footsoldier previously a member of the Durianrider raw fruit cult, can’t wrap his head around freegans who have money but chose not to consume the highest quality fresh produce and instead pick up food going to be wasted from shop owners or bins out the back of supermarkets, okay, that’s a personal value judgement, but again why misrepresent freeganism?

Freegans want the kind of food sharing solutions you gave as an example like in Berlin, but as a stop-gap to that perfectly legislated system, some are willing to drive to mega-supermarkets fill the van up to the brim with perfectly edible packaged food inside double-wrapped bin bags put out that night, bring it home and cook it up often for the public and homeless by street tabling like Food not Bombs do.


________

Contrast with Greece's potato movement



Or look at the potato movement in Greece whose national produce was going to be wasted because the austerity measures had driven consumer prices through the roof; groups organized days for the public to be able to buy in bulk from the farmers directly in town centres from the trucks, streamlining the utility of local resources.

If you are convinced about the hard effect we can have via supply and demand then freegans offset climate change for being carbon negative and reduce animal cruelty by feeding waste meat to their cats or making meals for carnists that would otherwise eat more bought animal products.


___________

Consequentialist wrap up

Okay I think that about wraps up the supply and demand consequentialist concerned section of this video. The consequentialist system being rooted in a hard calculus of weighing observable harm vs. good usually has a broad degree of consensus. So, any disagreement is usually rooted in misunderstandings and incorrect information. I think we’ve demonstrated that this is very likely the case here.

There’s an acknowledgment from those putting down freeganism that food sharing systems are morally positive and reduce harm. However, they question the need for vegans to participate in that for fear of sullying the image with newbies who haven’t acquired the right yuck factor yet. Ultimately though, we have no evidence of harm and plenty of good examples of harm reduction.


__________

Outline sketched



So next up we’ve got Liam Anthony on asking servers to change gloves before they start making his vegan food. His position is that if you eat freegan and plan to in the future then you're out of the club and shouldn't identify as vegan as a matter of rule-virtue that you would act like a cannibal.

I try to support vegan cafes and restaurants whenever I can, but if I ever eat at a place that cooks meat and get served something with animal in it, I might not be able to eat it and send it back, but I'm not so naive that I think yelling and having a fit is going to endear them to adding more vegan dishes to the menu.

Definitely, it's good to let the waiter know it's not what you ordered, even if you do end up eating it. Most won't save it for another patron, unfortunately. The hospital I stayed in for L&D did, though. They kept bringing up trays of food, and we kept turning them away. Every patient got the same thing so they would just take it to the next room.

Contrast with Feedback and Society of St. Andrews who help farmers glean vegetables that were not cost effective to pick because of cosmetic issues that year and give to charity, raising awareness at the same time.





Gary Francione on not eating food cooked on the same grill.





Contrast with APV who also sees merit in treating some duties to equality as a rule, her clip of the black panthers free breakfasts program, and clip of food not bombs today.





Eisel Mazard on meat eating being cannibalism, his wildlife management paradigm of a sign saying don't feed the bears, us on one side, them on the other to do their own thing. Quote of Cora Diamond essay showing how flip of status quo intuitions.



[Explaining why I group myself with the existentialists it’s somewhat dense, and hard to articulate in soundbite form.]

I accept consequentialist concerns such as quantifying material conditions at the base of society. These would include, each persons labor and educating and providing the capabilities to arrive at good consequences such as people being able to follow their own craft. But I feel like the culture that is created out of different egoist ethics is so broad that if you tried to drill down at the level of description you'd find a radical emptiness that allows us to define the limits of our own societies. I don't know if that's true existential nihilism.

There’s also my interest in the Situationists concept of psycho-geographies, being able to cycle tour living frugally on land protests, doing a modicum of environmental consciousness raising through campaigns. The exploration of towns in the time between trains, the randomness of what you'll find, like a pram for a mother that will be able to let her kid sleep while they go out looking for a chance to stow away in a lorry, or lemons that you didn't know would help them prepare the citrus infused food that reminded them of home.

This never felt like a moral wrong. I experienced it as helping them get enough calories, find some comfort in being able to repeat habits from home, and preventing food waste.


__________

Summary

[Sentiments about hoping it was a good introduction to freeganism and that vegan advocates will take a more inviting role in the future.]



_______

[NonZeroSum]

___________

Additions to work in

Assuming moral value is based on consequences which can be defined in terms of natural things (like pleasure/pain happiness/suffering or fulfillment/violation of interests) then the results of careful thinking on these topics with good evidence converge.
That basically there are right (consistent) and wrong (inconsistent) normative conclusions to draw from those ethical theories.
And we can see by the differences between consequentialists that diasagreement with freeganism is rooted in misunderstandings and incorrect information.

But when it comes to other moral foundations, from the deontological to the intuitionistic etc. normative conclusions don't necessarily follow strictly from logic and evidence from the theories, but are rather subject to personal belief, feelings, and biases, so there's a much more broad and diverse interpretation.

Then I'd go over them.

And close it with a brief discussion on the issue of whether these beliefs resonate with you probably depends on your personal feelings and intuitions, but unless somebody already shares your intuitions it's very hard to use them in any prescriptive sense. That is, we can't compel others to agree with our personal intuitions, even if they agree with deontology or intuitionism etc. because they may have completely different takes on these.

Thus at least in terms of outreach where there are differences of intuition, arguments from naturalistic consequences (less suffering, etc.) are the best to bridge the gap, and the only ones that lead to undeniable conclusions (at least once we have all of the facts straight) vindicating freeganism.


You might also want to include discussion of virtue ethics right after consequentialism. How if somebody is eating freegan to save food from waste and reduce harm that's good, but if somebody is doing it for personal pleasure to enjoy meat that might not be, but also how we can tie this back into consequentialism where an unbroken addiction to meat may be harmful in itself and result in recidivism if a time comes when freegan meat isn't accessible and they buy it instead (although a consequentialist would want evidence that this is a probable outcome, rather than spite freeganism for speculation).

________


Sources

Rest of the page is just resources I could work into the video:

For
• Vegan Gains
• Unnatural Vegan
• ModVegan
• Ethologic
• Shelbizleee
• Carb Up and Carpe Diem!
• EcoPeaceful

Misunderstands, but mostly on board
• LayVegan

Against
• Liam Anthony
• Gary Francione
• a-bas-le-ciel
• Chris Hines
• Banana Warrior Princess
• FootSoldier
• Jack Green

Not sure
• Reg Flowers
• A privileged vegan - 99% sure yes, but should ask as thrown into doubt by Reg's misunderstandings about food not bombs history

Examples
• Potato movement Greece
• Feedback
• St. Andrews Society
• APV – Black Panthers
• Activist Journeys - Calais


For

Vegan Gains
• How Much Food Can You Find In A Dumpster?

Unnatural Vegan
• Food Waste & Freeganism (Part 1: Why wasting food is so bad & simple ways to avoid it)
• Food Waste & Freeganism (Part 2: What is a freegan and why does it matter?)
• Let’s be better people (my new year’s resolutions for 2016)
• Let’s be better people (my new year’s resolutions for 2017)
• Can cats and dogs eat a vegan diet? (why Sniff still eats meat)
• Vegan Cheetah is not vegan (what is the definition of veganism?)
• Gary Francione doesn’t understand veganism or activism (dumpster diving & what it means to be vegan)

ModVegan
• Veganism’s Puritan Problem Part 1
• Dumpster Diving! Veganism’s Puritan Problem, Part 2
• Veganism's Eternal September & Vegan Gatekeeper Syndrome
• Why Veganism Is Not "THE" Solution

Ethologic
• Love this answer by Ethologic on freeganism

Shelbizleee
• Ulta Dumpster Diving Haul | $2000+ of PRODUCT
• ULTA Dumpster Dive Vlog | TIPS AND TRICKS
• Ulta Dumpster Diving Haul | PALETTE JACKPOT!!! ($500+)

Carb Up and Carpe Diem!
• BREAD FOR A VILLAGE-This Week’s Dumpster Diving Hauls!
• A BIG DUMPSTER DIVE HAUL!
• LIVE DUMPSTER DIVE FOR FOOD AND PET SUPPLIES!

EcoPeaceful
• Is Dumpster Diving for Cat Food an Ethical Option for Vegans?


Misunderstands, but mostly on board
Lay Vegan
• Vegans Can Eat Meat? Re: Edwins Generation


Against

Liam Anthony

Footsoldier
• Unnatural Vegan Isn’t Vegan (Freeganism Response)

à-bas-le-ciel
• Cannibals when Convenient: Edwin’s Generation & Unnatural Vegan.
• #DOGGATE: An Analysis (Vegan Gains vs. Vegan Cheetah)
• Veganism: Compassion, Contempt and Loathing.
• Vegan “Purity”: Collaborating with Hunters

Gary L. Francione
• Thought of the Day: “But it’s Just A Little Bit” and Dumpster Diving
• “Discarded” Animal Products: Dumpster Diving and Fried Potatoes II

Thunder Bay Personal Trainer – Logan Blake
• EDWINS GENERATION THINKS EATING MEAT IS VEGAN – THE NEW VEGAN UMBRELLA


Not sure
Reg Flowers
• I'm LIVE on YouNow December 17, 2017
A privileged vegan
• Resource based economy


Examples

ReelNews
• Rushes from Greece

Feedback
• Feedback Network

St. Andrews Society
• Gleaning 800lbs. of apples

APV
• My thoughts on Resource based economy and TZM

Activist Journeys
• Solidarity activism and situationist derive



______________

Transcripts


ModVegan

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3662#p35499
6. Whether or not you would eat it or regard it as healthy, do you consider "freegan" meat (from road kill, or garbage), or future in-vitro meat grown from cell cultures without animal products ("clean meat") as morally acceptable?
Yes.
.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3651#p35494
It's so disappointing when vegans go after guys like Edwins Generation. He clearly means well, and he's not actively harming animals or exploiting them (as far as I could tell from the clips that UV used). He's just "impure", which is like catnip for angry vegans, who are thrilled to run him out of "club vegan" on a rail.
.

Mod Vegan: The Future Of Veganism & Vegan Technology
https://youtu.be/JD-GczXtcWE?t=2m56s

Chris:
I mean one thing I've always been interested in is obviously you know we call ourselves vegans and everything I mean when do you see the time when we are no longer vegan I mean do you think what do you think will happen to the term because once the world is vegan I mean are we still vegan or are we just normal no?

ModVegan:
I think that there will be a change there I'm not exactly I can't predict how that's going to occur what people are gonna call themselves in the future and I think that for ethical vegans once the world sort of accepts that exploitation is the wrong thing to do we will probably refer to people who exploit animals as exploiters and it's going to be like we call people racists today I mean that's probably going to be the same kind of epithet I'm not I don't really know what we're gonna do in that respect exactly the feeling is going to be kind of the same way people are gonna react instinctively against once it becomes a normal way of living people are going to be very suspicious of people who still exploit animals when they don't need

Chris:
have you seen the documentary on carnage British documentary yes there was a great line on Mary when that and someone was getting interviewed and they said oh you're just a vegan he said we're not vegans you're carnist yeah because you know that was kind of like the yeah the changing of the the use of language and stuff which I found really interesting because yeah I mean we've all got you know vegan is kind of like our identity in a ways and so be every strange if you strange to kind of shed that identity and just become

ModVegan:
exactly and I think it's exciting that people like you are excited about that like I'm excited for veganism some won't no longer be a big deal for everyone to just know that it's right not to exploit anyone unless you have to right yeah and I think this I'm excited for that I think there are some people who are a little afraid of losing that identity and I made a video about it this was last week like I I do think that that is a fear for some people um but I think we'll get over it at least I hope so yeah do we need more newbie vegans we need more people excited about not exploiting animals so I hope that we'll all be welcoming people who are who are giving up the animal product yeah definitely.


Mod Vegan: The Future Of Veganism & Vegan Technology
https://youtu.be/rrQSOCMyK9o?t=40m35s

What's your thoughts on eating plant-based foods that are fried or cooked with animal products for removing say cheese from a pasta salad and then eating the pasta

well I know this is very controversial but for me personally I think that it just depends on you as a person I think that it's about such that you don't want to obviously advertise animal products I certainly um I think that it's important to like if someone's serving an animal product and you eat it because it's there I think that's a really hard argument to make that you're doing something good for veganism by doing that I think that's a very hard argument to make that it's but it's a super good thing to do that but for the example the other day my husband ordered a vegan burger and they brought it and she was annoying cuz restaurant goes all the time and we usually send it back this time you just peeled it off and ate it because you didn't want to just throw away the burger so you know otherwise speaking so he doesn't mind if it touches his food I couldn't do that because I'm really lactose intolerant so I wouldn't be able to eat it anyway we need music I think it depends on the person you know if you can just take it off do that I don't really believe in wasting food I think if you can see from wasting food that's a good thing and you have to kind of judge the person you're working with to like sometimes if you're talking to someone and you know it's going to especially if you're at someone's house Bikram made something for you and it's got cheese on it and you can easily take it off it'll be way less offended if you just take it off and if you like tell them to pick it back you know use your common sense and your do what's right for you for your health and and as far as the oil goes again I think that's a personal issue I think it has more do with your your disgust response I personally am okay with it I don't think that it's hurting any extra animals so I have no problem with it like I ordered a burger and fries the other day a company here in town started their a burger place I think it's called like flame burger or something and they just added a vegan burger with a vegan bun and the fries are or no it's the burger with cooked on the same grill that's with the other burgers but I was like you know it's okay because I'm telling them that this is an important thing and I'm encouraging them to make more of it I think Gary Yourofsky has a similar stance on those kinds of things weed stuff when I can but I'm not gonna be too fussy on it you know like I said for cooking someone on the the same grill um I have like a couple specs or something I mean this yeah it's not - I mean you you want to encourage them to keep doing a vegan product I mean yeah you can make the suggestion oh maybe you could do this but I mean yeah yeah I think you know you want to encourage them you know if you if you've got to be a good kind of example of a vegan as well if you go in there and just be nice and polite and stuff and you know you kind of respect the fact that they're trying I think that's a really good thing to do yeah I think you know we need to help them help us kind of you know yeah I think is the main thing


______

____________

Liam Anthony

Liam directed me to some comments of his on the Footsoldier video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9tZGBa0x4I&t=1089s

Liam Anthony
For the people who don't realize there are two parts to the vegan society's definition.

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

There are many ways to embrace vegan living. Yet one thing all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat (including fish, shellfish and insects), dairy, eggs and honey - as well as products like leather and any tested on animals.

Footsoldier
yeah sure, that is the logical dietary conclusion of the primary statement written out, however UV and freegans think they can add an asterisk because the victim was already murdered.

TheNewHope
yet i have to disagree a bit "avoiding all animal foods" is still overruled by "as far as is possible and practicable" if one eats roadkill (which i don't consider a food) in a survival situation where you had no other choice then you would still be vegan.

This situation will probably never happen to us but in theory i would consider someone vegan to eat a dead animal that died by accident if it was life or death situation for him.

Liam Anthony
Objectively speaking. By any definition. Vegan Society, dictionary, or colloquial. A vegan is someone who does not knowingly consume animal products. This is objective.

People throw around the vegan society definition of veganism but forget the second half. Seriously, check out their website.

It is NOT IMMORAL to eat road kill etc... But it isnt vegan. Vegans do not view animals as products for consumption dead or alive. This is a VALUE that is unique to the vegan in-group. And the practice of abstaining from animal products in any context is the identifier someone is vegan. its a baseline.

Vegan values are in line with a reduce harm approach, which is a "more moral" life style but adds the additional axiom of not knowingly consuming animal products.
So, yes. someone could have a highly specialized diet that includes road kill and trash, and the potential amount of "harm points" associated with their diet could be less than a typical vegan diet.

but based on every definition of veganism. Vegan Society, Dictionary, and colloquial. Vegans abstain from consuming animal products IN ADDITION to living a lifestyle that reduces harm.

Liam Anthony
also, in an extreme survival situation. ethics, principles, morality, values, etc.... isn't typically someone's main concern. And I am assuming that if they made it through that EXTREME situation they would go back to being a vegan. and I wouldn't hold it against them.

Footsoldier
I'd also add that the desert island scenaro may be consistent in a human context: if you are stranded on an island with no other food and there is an old man with you who is almost dead anyway, you have two choices:

- kill him and eat him and fuck morals
- don't eat him and all die and keep your morals

this applies in a human or animal context because it is survival. Meat eaters cannot argue from this perspective though because the are generally not in a survival context.

Liam Anthony
I really like how you used counter culture to describe veganism. First time I've heard it explained like that.


_______________

Reg Flowers

Me: I'm making my first video and the topic is freeganism so asking youtubers whether [or not (they read it wrong to fatal miscommunication results] they would eat waste animal products would they consider it moral?

Reg: Yeah I'm like I don’t feel like I want to, if you're asking because you want to know what I think me personally I feel like anytime I present flesh from an animal or a product that came from an animal as food I'm buying into and promoting maintaining an attitude that animals are objects right so yeah I just I don't want to it's to me I don't see that as that's not it's not a question of like whether it's it's moral to eat it or not moral to eat it it's to me it is not food it's not food so why would I wouldn't eat it any more than if you know a person fell dead in front of me I didn't kill them it would be edible if I cooked it what I do it what I do it I wouldn't do it because I not see a human being s food so however if someone brought me a glass of breast milk that I might you know I might consume that because I at least that's food right that's fruit it's a foodstuff it's intended to be consumed right so I don't know I don't know about the whole freaking thing

Me: Whether or not they [would] eat animals themselves? like Food Not Bombs tabling rescued food

Reg: Now I'm a big fan of Food Not Bombs and I don't know cos are you part of Food Not Bombs Food Not Bombs at least in Detroit and the group that I'm familiar with they I think because they want to provide food that most people that that isn't alienating they lean towards products that are vegan and in my experience at least the group of Food Not Bombs that I was working with I have worked with and the Food Not Bombs that provided food to the to last year's pedagogy and theater of the oppressed conference all of that food was vegan but they they will often include things like bread even if that bread has like trace milk products in it so that's not you know I've I've not known of a Food Not Bombs meal that contained animal flesh however and like I said the experience I have with Food Not Bombs the event that they were catering for us was the event that they were catering for us was was vegan so listen you know I'm looking down at my phone and I'm seeing that it's ringing and I think I want to grab this call I'm not gonna actually grab it but I'm gonna call this person right back at someone calling me from Detroit probably looking for me to return so all of that said it's been great hanging out with all of you today it's been an interesting it's been an interesting live stream I bet this is gonna get I feel like this was gonna this one's gonna get a lot of views.

Me: Yes vegan or vegetarian in the mandate/website, the founder of it came up with the term freegan.

Reg: Yeah I mean, I think it's definitely worth having a conversation about.


_______

Ethologic (Tim)

Love this answer by Ethologic on Freeganism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eMF8LNpSMw

Banana Warrior Princess:
Vegan/freegan, oh god that unnatural vegan video, it was really I think I don't like freeganism I just don’t get it, I understand the arguments for it but . . .

I understand freegan to mean that you dumpster dive for things and it's got meat or dairy or eggs in it you can have it because you're not paying for it so you're not contributing to the industry that's how I how I understand freegan.

I still don't agree I mean I understand that you're not contributing this stuff but you're still kind of saying or promoting the fact that you're complicit with their death because you wouldn't even eat a sandwich with dogs meat or anything in it so why would

Chris Hines:
Yeah we had this conversation the other day didn't we and I said like as much as eating animal products that are free is you know isn't acceptable in the way that you're not paying for the enemy if you are eating them around people you're still promoting the fact that animals of food that say well it's no evidence to say that they'll say that there's no evidence to say that and why are you eating that food it promotes the use of their quality system is not there's no evidence to say that it will increase sales of meat doesn't work for the vegan message because you know it doesn't try to decrease either

Banana Warrior Princess:
You just shouldn’t do it, yeah.

Chris Hines:
It still means that their food, it’s still saying animals are food, when we should be saying no animals are not food.

Tim:
So Liam makes a pretty good argument, so I get into this with him a lot because I'm pro-freeganism, I think it's, like I watch this documentary called Dive! and what this guy does with the food that he collects out of the dumpster deeds and to me it's like if you talk to people he seemed to not let me feed his family and then shelters with all the shit he collects when he's dumped her it's really amazing it's a 50 minute documentary totally worth watching. . .
So he's doing it's great, but Liam makes a really compelling argument and in that kinda what you're driving actress it's that um you wouldn't be fine with people eating corpses human corpses right they're dead so if you're dead you don't possess a body right you don't have a body because you're so the body becomes a sub without without the life, without life a subject becomes an object, would you guys agree with that, a corpse to me is not a person any more

Banana Warrior Princess:
But it still has meaning to somebody else.

Tim:
well I mean but if they're dead it just becomes animal matter at that point that's just the way I see if they're dead the person's gone the person for the person to be a present consciousness and life needs to exist so without those two things there's no person left and it becomes it goes from being a subject to an object

But even still even if even if we agree that's truth we would never agree that it's okay to eat corpses because they would normalize cannibal do cannibalism forget the health argument with normalize cannibalism so Liam's argument essentially becomes we shouldn't be normalizing eating roadkill or eating any animals no matter how we get it because you're normalizing it you're making you're saying it's okay to do this in our culture and you should never make a statement that it's okay to eat dead bodies.

So and and I I agree with him even though I do support people doing the freeganism thing because I'd rather not see all those animals just go into a dumpster when there's humans who are starving to death.

Like it's it's not a tenable choice it's certainly not the best situation to be in but you know if you watch this documentary I think you'll be more sympathetic to it because you see the fuckin amount of food this guy pulls out of dumpsters and it's all good food you're like holy shit all of this is just getting thrown into landfills well there's people starving to death.

A better solution would be to go dumpster diving, get all the meat, get all the vegan stuff, you keep the vegan stuff, send the meat to zoos.

______

Liam Anthony and Ethologic on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Liamdoesit/status/939659694943166465

(bit difficult to follow as they don't stick to one thread, and limited by characters)

Liam Anthony‏ @Liamdoesit
are you vegan if you knowingly consume animal products. I.e. Eating your friends leftover chicken wings?

Ethologic‏
Replying to @Liamdoesit
uf. I don't like the dichotomous options. Was your friend going to throw those out? Is it merely the consumption of the product that is the problem? What if you gave the chicken wings to your dog instead of you directly consuming them?

Liam Anthony‏
Another example of why vegans shouldnt own pets.

Ethologic‏
Again, I disagree. Do you think a shelter dog is better of dead? What if the shelter dog is instead adopted by a meat eater? Will the dog eat more or less other animals in that scenario? You're missing a lot of nuance.

Liam Anthony‏
Exploit is to use as a resource and gain benefit from. Vegans don't look at animals as a resource. Dead or alive.

Liam Anthony‏
You can say eating road kill is ethical. But you can't say it's vegan.

Ethologic‏
Dead things aren't subjects though. You can't exploit a subject that is dead, by then it is merely and object.

Liam Anthony‏
...... Bro. You can exploit a resource. You can exploit new technology. You can exploit the fast check out times at DMV A as opposed to DMV B.To exploit is to take advantage for your benefit. has nothing to do with conciousness of what ur exploiting.

---

Liam Anthony‏
Vegans don't view animals as products. Their corpses, included.

Ethologic‏
And eating roadkill doesn't make it a product. I'm not talking about a market around eating corpses.

Liam Anthony‏
I didn't say it was a commodity to be traded and sold. Although paleo is getting popular. I said you are using it as a resource to derive benefit from.

Ethologic‏
I think you're drawing unnecessary absolutes. If we followed your strict definition of veganism, no one could be vegan.

Liam Anthony‏
My strict definition of veganism? Don't knowingly consume animal products. Boom. You're vegan. I don't think that's so strict.

Ethologic‏
And, again, it is about exploiting animals, not consuming them. If you exploit animals in any way, per your definition, you're not vegan. Therefore, if you eat any plant that requires insect pollination, you are not vegan.

Liam Anthony‏
Eating road kill is a direct action that can be avoided.

Ethologic‏
You don't need to eat, apples, guave, cauliflower, cashews, almonds, pistachios, pomegranates, peaches, nectarines, avocados, onions, oranges, green beans, sunflower oil..... shall I keep going?

Liam Anthony‏
Vegans don't eat animal products

Ethologic‏
All of those are plants that require bee pollination. How is exploiting the labor of insects vegan, but eating the already naturally dead corpse not?

Liam Anthony‏
By any definition vegans don't consume animal products. If you want to consume animal products. You ain't in the club.

Ethologic‏
I don't care about the club. I care about ethics. And again, if you eat almonds, or any of the other plants I mentioned, you're not vegan by your own standard. Unless the exploitation part doesn't matter.

Liam Anthony‏
This is why I don't like the vegan society's definition of veganism. I take a more Jeff Nelson approach. Anyone who doesn't knowingly consume animal products is vegan.

Ethologic‏
I hate their definition. For all the reasons you just laid out. In any case, you do know now. So are you going to stop eating those things or are you comfortable with supporting some animal exploitation?

Liam Anthony‏
Insects who pollinate plants are engaged in a win/win relationship with us. They do their insect thing. I get avocados. There's nothing win/win with your friends left over chicken wings.

Ethologic‏
Okay, but someone could claim that about all animal agriculture. Who are you to decide what is a win-win? And it is a win-win for me to eat my friends leftover chicken wings if they were going to be thrown away anyhow, which was my initial contention with your question.

Liam Anthony‏
Wasn't win-win for the chicken. Eating that chicken communicates to your friend that the behavior of ordering chicken and consuming is ok. Don't underestimate the power of group membership.

Ethologic‏
And in your scenario, the chicken has already become an object, and I would not be creating an incentive to produce more. And I can say eating meat is okay while also maintaining that intentionally killing animals for food is wrong.

Liam Anthony‏
And I would argue that is a shit way to convince people to quit looking at animals as a products.

Ethologic‏
Again, I could say the same about almonds. I think reducing your contribution to the industry that directly exploits animals is what matters. In fact, you may be able to convince more people because it may actually appear to be less extreme than strict veganism.

Liam Anthony‏
Also, to get very pedantic. If your goal is to live as morally as possible. And morality is about not causing harm. Consuming Animal products causes harm to the individual. Which is easily avoided by not consuming said animal.

Ethologic‏ @TimJIvey
Replying to @Liamdoesit
If a guy jumps on a grenade to save his comrades, has he done something immoral?

---

Liam Anthony‏
Replying to @TimJIvey
Vegans don't view animals as products. Their corpses, included.

Ethologic‏
That's an assertion. Is eating roadkill better or worse than killing an insect? What about a plant? It seems you're implicitly arguing it's worse to consume something that is dead than it is to consume something that is alive.

Liam Anthony‏
That's literally the definition of exploitation.

Ethologic‏
It is wrong to exploit a brick to build a house?

Liam Anthony‏
It's still exploitation. And vegans don't view animals as a resource to gain benefit alive or dead.

Ethologic‏
Again, you're making assertions. You're not the President of Veganism Liam. lol

Liam Anthony‏
Look at ever definition of veganism

Ethologic‏
"As far as practicable and possible..." You can cause LESS animal exploitation by eating roadkill than you could from eating many plant foods.

Ethologic‏
So if the goal is to avoid as much exploitation as possible, eating roadkill is a very viable option.

Liam Anthony‏
Read the rest of the page of the vegan society bro. They clear state vegans don't consume animal products of any kind.

Ethologic‏
But they do! That's my point. You are directly exploiting the labor of insects. To me, it is far worse to knowingly exploit a living animal than to exploit an already dead animal.

Liam Anthony‏
Clearly you are missing the point of my argument. I'm not arguing the ethics of a person who consumes road kill. There is more to life than trying to reduce harm. Vegans are a group of people who value not consuming corpses. If you consume corpse you ain't apart of the club.

Ethologic‏
You're not getting my point either. Who gives a shit about being in a club? I already said group membership is irrelevant to me if not for ethics. You've basically just convinced me that veganism isn't about making the most ethical decisions. I'm no longer Vegan.

Liam Anthony‏
But what do I do with my membership jacket?

Ethologic‏
lol

[NonZeroSum]

Heya freegan old timer, you still around to give your thoughts

You got any good memes up your sleeves, I was thinking of these funny clips from Rick and Morty:

On Cannibalism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcegUsjYbc

On Wildlife Management Paradigm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTnO-1QvRr0

[NonZeroSum]

___________

Unnatural Vegan

When vegans eat meat (freeganism, Edwins Generation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFShfj8Phf4&lc=UgwtQKYLwhlSMtVMza54AaABAg

Thoughts on two recent videos from Edwins Generation: "I'm Vegan, But I Could Eat Meat" and "Vegan Responds To Criticism From Vegans".

Survey for vegan youtubers (#6 has to do with freeganism/in-vitro meat)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=35470

Transcript:

So YouTuber Edwins Generation, he recently published this video called; "I'm vegan, but I could eat meat," where he talks about his recent personal experience eating some chicken that was going to be thrown away, he didn't want it to go to waste so he ate it and I agree that this was a good thing to do.

This is basically freeganism, I've talked about that a few times on this channel, I did a whole two part series on food waste, the second part of which specifically deals with freeganism. I also talked about it quite a bit in my response to Gary Francione several months ago, earlier this year I think.

Whilst I don't personally dumpster-dive, or anything like that, I have ordered something that ended up having animal products on it and then just ate it anyway because again I didn't want to waste it.

I think the last time that happened spent a long time like a few years ago my brother and I went to Taco Bell, I remember and I ordered a burrito, no cheese, it had cheese on it, you know you pick off what you can, but it's kind of like in there right, so whatever I ate the cheese, it was fine.

And then I think another time before that I was at this little, this little lettuce place it was called lettuce eat ha ha ha, they're close uh, of course "let us eat," I ordered a salad, with it was supposed to be tofu, but I guess they they kind of look similar, tofu and feta cheese, so there was feta cheese, gross, that was not something I ever ate even before I was vegan but I ate it anyway, again the damage was done, there was no point in letting the food go to waste.

Anyway Edwin then made a follow-up video to his first video just going through some of the negative comments that he got from some vegans from some fellow vegans and there are some interesting parts of that video that i would like to talk about, so here we go:

Got it quite a few comments telling me that hey make up your own name but don't you can't sit with us another joke ok don't take it seriously if i were to say something like i'm a frigate aryan or something a stranger a family member a friend would not get it at all they would i would have to start explaining it would be so confusing it would be so much more pain in the butt but when I say I'm vegan a lot of people get it so this actually makes some sense to me this this might be true you know I've had conversations with people who they knew what vegan was but they only knew it to mean you don't eat meat dairy eggs like you don't eat animal products right so then you know if I said something like oh I support in-vitro meat right you know I I think in vitro meat is great and is vegan they're shocked it's like what how can that but it's neat that's how can it be vegan it can't be vegan in any context right and so then I'd have to talk about the definition of vegan and exploitation and you know the difference between you know ethical and dietary veganism and I don't I don't think it helped like much at all like it's I think they thought that I was I was trying to get out of something right like I was trying to just make an excuse for eating animal products my point is is that I can see the same sort of thing happening with freakin ISM just just people not understanding it again because they have this kind of diet definition of veganism not understanding the ethics behind it not understanding the economics behind at all not understanding that the issue isn't really with eating the meat but with supporting the production of that meat right not understanding that there's a huge difference between eating some chicken that's gonna go in the trash and like purchasing that chicken yourself or having someone else purchase it for you and I can kind of see this backfiring and like a personal situation like you tell a family member or something that your freegan and they're like oh I get it and they take it to mean that like okay you won't buy animal products but I can buy animal products for you right and then like buying you some eggs or something I'm not saying that this is definitely gonna happen or that I've heard of this happening or anything like that I can just I can imagine that happening and I'm not saying that freegans should like hide being freegan or just everyone you know if you're freaking just say you're vegan to make it easier or anything like that I think it's important that this has talked about with people including with non vegans but I do think it depends on the the context and personal preference so you know I don't see any problem with a freakin just saying yeah I'm vegan just to make things easier right I think it just depends you know if you're in a situation where you're talking with someone who you know obviously doesn't really want to talk about it or is being defensive or is asking questions in like a an aggressive way I'm sure all of you have experienced that before then yeah it's probably easier to just say like yeah I'm vegans be done with it right but if someone is like questioning and really wants to know then that might be a good opportunity to actually talk about it and try to like explain the ethics and the economics behind it but but again it depends on the person depends on the situation I remember what what chicken wings tasted like when I when I enjoyed it and I taste it again and it still tasted good like to meet tastebuds just don't go away like if I enjoyed something two weeks ago and I taste it again it still is gonna taste similar to me I don't understand how vegans have this mentality that it's like ah I saw the torture so what no Lenore tastes good like I'm sorry look I I understand it I've seen the videos and everything but it still tastes good so this obviously depends on the person too you know there are some vegans who say even like short term vegans vegans who haven't even been vegan that long who are like yeah I don't miss animal products at all you know there's just that really intense that yuck factor there it's usually like this moral disgust they're just they cannot see the chicken breast without thinking of the the chicken suffering right but then there are other vegans who just they don't have that sort of thing and they really do like still like a products they can imagine eating a hamburger or whatever and it's like yeah that would probably be delicious or even like longing for these products I've read comments from longtime vegans who are like yeah I still think about certain foods yeah like I miss those foods I wish I could eat those foods it's like smoking you know some smokers it's like they never think about smoking anymore but then there are others who haven't smoked in years and it's like yeah I still think about lighting up multiple times a day for me there there are definitely certain animal products that I'm pretty sure I would still like like hot dogs and the chicken nuggets McDonald's chicken nuggets it's like all the processed stuff I've said before like that's you know I was never big on like the t-bone steak in like chicken breasts and stuff like stuff that had like that wasn't uniform right it wasn't processed so there's like gristle and cartilage oh god like if I got any of that it's like nope can't eat anymore that's disgusting so I always gravitated towards the like the taco meat you know the ground beef the stuff that was more uniform and I didn't have to worry about bone or anything else yeah I mean look I'm I'm pretty sure if I ate some deviled ham with saltines today I probably liked it but again a steak chicken breast a drumstick I don't I don't think I could handle that not only again because I didn't really like these foods before but they're so close to the animal for me now I don't think I could disassociate it I don't I don't think I could see it as anything more than like where it came from whereas deviled ham and hot dogs are like barely even food but either way does this even matter I mean should we really be shaming people who are willing to admit that like yeah certain animal products still sound good to me or like yeah I actually miss eating those foods I mean isn't the important thing that these people are vegan I feel like we need to acknowledge that there is some sacrifices to be made you know like just because it tastes good doesn't mean we need it like we don't require a real chicken wing we have that little substitute if anything I think these people should be praised right like they're the ones we should be saying like hell yeah good job people who find it easy to 98 animals and to be vegan like I'm not making any sort of sacrifice but people who are like yeah I miss those foods but they still say no and they still stay vegan that's awesome vegans don't eat meat because they are fundamentally against exploitation and cruelty towards animals the problem with your scenario is that even if you're not buying it yourself you're still eating animal flesh and viewing animals as products which they are not so this is a critique of freeganism that I've seen a lot this idea that eating the chicken that's just gonna be thrown in the trash or wearing leather that you got you know before you went vegan that this is like a kind of slippery slope back to exploiting animals right because you're still viewing the animals as products that could actually be true you know I could see how someone who is free an or trying to be freegan may they could try to justify other you know not freakin forms of eating me you know maybe they can't find the freakin options and they really want meat so maybe just this once they end up purchasing some meat instead but this should not be used to justify fear-mongering against freeganism against dumpster-diving it does not contribute to animal exploitation and it's a viable option for some people there's also the concern that doing this that again for example you know eating the chicken that's gonna be thrown in the trash or wearing leather that you already had that doing this could or definitely will depends on who's talking I guess we'll you know contribute to exploitation by others by other people because you are sending the message that you know animals are products and so you are encouraging people to exploit animals to the extent that anybody sees you eat them you certainly are increasing demand because you're reinforcing the idea that animal foods are things to eat and that is going to increase the man because you're sending a message out and that it that message is consistent with the overall species this message that leads to our exploiting non-human animals but as I've asked before including in my response to that video from Gary France Ian do we have any evidence for this you know I see this claim being made a lot and it's very authoritative you know vegans are saying this as if it's been proven this is a fact you know this idea that eating the chicken that's going to be thrown in the trash or wearing the old leather or you know eating eggs from a rescued backyard hen or dumpster diving that these sorts of practices are definitely 100 percent contributing or going to contribute to animal exploitation where is the evidence and to those of you who still eat meat like serious question if you saw someone dumpster diving and like pulling meat out of a dumpster is that really appetizing like does that really make you like want to eat meat does that feel like I don't know like it's reinforcing eating meat for you I feel like if I still ate me and I saw that it would have the opposite effect it's perfectly possible that be freegan for instance that this actually helps veganism and actually helps to end exploitation I mean maybe the fact that people are being freaking and talking about it with non vegans it actually helps to show that veganism isn't all about you know purity and dogma that people don't just care about the label or they don't just want to be part of a group that we really just want to do better we want to make the world a better place via our actions I'm willing to bet that seeing veganism this way instead of as some elitist Club is far more likely to encourage people to take a look at their own purchasing habits.


------------------
*References*

Edwin's videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKjBlW4yaxg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65_MEtq6J8

My foodwaste/freegan series
https://youtu.be/PEP0A93pYIk
https://youtu.be/ZzH6UEOz2Bs

My response to Gary Francione
https://youtu.be/zVKLzhQFdGE


________

à-bas-le-ciel

Sees no value in one person deluding themselves about effect can have on consumer demand, but should think of themselves as part of political "animus," where dignity is prized. Likes the idea of organizing on the frontiers of new battles, doesn't want to see community of organizers reduced by those with little motivation hanging around muddying the water?

Meat eating being cannibalism, his wildlife management paradigm of a sign saying don't feed the bears, us on one side, them on the other to do their own thing.

Quote from Subjectivist/intutiionist refutation of Singer's Marginal Cases essay, an interesting case of where vegans flip the status quo on it's head and see participating in the waste-products of animal slaughter as - as abhorrent as voluntary cannibalism, that the change is going to happen in terms of culture and instilled imagery.

Maximizing ability to use all of our/their capabilities/character virtue of humans and non-human animals: not about settling or everyone as individuals reducing suffering around them, but a political movement to move from livestock and pet industry to getting well managed wildlife habitat, where the most amount of animals can fill their needs.


Canibalism and political animus

Cannibalism is bad, cannibalism is disgusting, I can just present that as an argument based on animus, in the political sense of animus, and so what?

You know pedophilia isn't wrong because a breeding demand for more pedophilia, it's wrong in itself, the fact itself is wrong without having to look at subsequent stages of like you're encouraging other people to engage in it, which may or may not be true, right? I mean to me it's just ridiculous.

But like you know what if it belongs in the trash? Like I just don't see the argument for that.

I mean yes there is a slippery slope element, but like okay a human body is going to go to waste, this was debated in ancient Greece by the way, this debate happened in Athens and Rome, with cannibalism being the referent, it was a waste of meat on human beings that had died as opposed to putting them in a grave. Again they’re going to biodegrade in a fucking grave, so what?

so anyway sorry I from my perspective there is nothing complex about this I guess the illusion is that there's something immoral about rotten meat being put in a dumpster and I don't see it that way at all like to me that would be the same as justifying cannibalism by claiming there's something immoral about a human corpse being buried in the earth and thus going to waste as opposed to being eaten I don't see it as immoral to put expired cheese in the dumpster put expired cheese in the dumpster that's where it belongs yeah I don't think you're doing something morally positive by rescuing that cheese from the dumpster or by rescuing meat from going into the dumpster in the same sense I don't think you're do so morally positive by rescuing a corpse in the burial ground and engaging in cannibalism although that also could be justified as having some kind of positive ecological benefit as avoiding food waste as avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and all these other things that people have kind of thrown in to complicate the matter

Market demand only in so much as we’ve given market exchange special significance culturally?

I just don't see why it's theoretically, philosophically or political difficult to argue that eating meat is bad, even if you didn't pay for it like I I just don't see departed or you for vegans to pay that are so many I don't see why that's being treated as a bridge too far. Like yes it's true I do think paying for meat has a kind of special significance for us in a free-market capitalist society, but if anything on my channel I've mostly criticized the delusion that you're making a difference in the world by reducing demand they got a lot of people are deluded about that right, but no eating meat is bad, that's a pretty common [inaudible]

I just say in general I think the comparison to cannibalism is often a useful way to frame the discussion if and when you get into an apparent gray area about veganism so in this case there's I think a fake gray area created about veganism defined in terms of whether or not you pay for the food now I do think that paying for food is significant significant economically and morally and personally I do feel very differently about it I mean the other day we ate dinner with some of my bosses and my employers and co-workers and they were paying for their own food and they paid for me I would feel very differently about it if I were the one paying for that meal like a fruit meal of people I would refuse to buy meat for other people and I have been put in that position where people expect you to you know and it's it's it's rough it's a big it's not nice it's not great to tell your boss no I'm not gonna pay for your meal you know sir this isn't China but it could be similar in Western culture no I'm not gonna buy it's actually I think it's immoral for me to because you ordered meat you know so you know that those are those articles you reading so I'm not gonna say that the question is paying for something or not paying for something is of trivial significant so that it's irrelevant it is of some significance

Shame – vice

So, I just mention though, so she just really asked a kind of dishonest question, she asked should we be shaming people who still want to eat animal products, well yes… what's the point of shame if not to be ashamed of that. No like seriously, what should you be ashamed of if not that, for then too, the point here is specifically should you make people feel ashamed who wants to eat animal products and actually do eat animal products, yes.

I mean I know she thinks she's presenting some kind of like theoretically sophisticated argument her, but I don't find sophisticated at all but what's so bad about shame you know what I mean like should you feel ashamed that you bought something you know manufactured in South Africa under apartheid should be ashamed that you own you know it's gonna stay like elephant tusks I mean like you know I don't know I guess you know what Jane isn't all bad so what does a human response

Well what about the comparison to rape which many vegans make you know well you think someone is more praiseworthy because they want to commit crimes whether it's rape or murder or cannibalism what-have-you and they either hold back from it or only engage in it when it's in this sense facilitated for them by someone else's unethical behavior because the fundamental situation here is you're sitting at a table in the yoga orders meet somebody else commits an unethical acts which again could be complet of someone killing someone so they can engage cannibalism or whatever comparison you want to make and then you are free right in on their unethical action you're taking Avenger your opportunistically taking advantage of their unethical act and you're considering that to be morally neutral on your own part or a natural vegan says morally praiseworthy because this is something you really desire to do but you oppress that desire more than other it's bizarre it's completely bizarre to me yeah and you also made the point that unnatural vegan says that we shouldn't be shaming these people why not why shouldn't what what are you gonna be ashamed of in this life if not cannibalism what are you gonna be ashamed of in this life if not you know eating meat

Dignity – virtue

This is true so Theo's alluding it to one of the arguments I make again and again, you're right Theo like probably could or should make that argument here, the question is also what kind of a, what kind of a person do you want to be, so that's true, sometimes I forget the arguments I make myself that arguments in terms of personal virtue i.e. again you know one of the reasons you don't engage in cannibalism is because you don't want to be a cannibal, you don't want to be the kind of person who engages in cannibalism or makes excuses for it, likewise I would say there's an issue with you know being someone who doesn't eat cow meat because you don't want to be the kind of person who eats cow meat. It's a declaration of who you are and what rules you live by and so on, what kind of person you might be, what kind of person you want to become.

Forget about the animals for a minute forget about ecology forget about your health which are already all compelling reasons not to me even as a free good have you but you know what kind of person do you want to be do you want to be the kind of person who makes these kinds of absurd self contradictory or moral excuses for your actions or not and I mean that's really what I have to say.

One of the reasons why I don't eat meat is because I want to be the kind of person who refuse do you mean one of the reasons why I live my life in a kind of simple morally consistent way is because I don't want to be inconsistent and that's most of what they get into where they start to pretend this is something theoretically sophisticated is to get into these sorts of quid ''tis of well in this scenario would you do X or Y you're sitting at a dinner table with other people and they ordered meat and the meat will go to waste the meat will go into the garbage would you prefer to eat that meat rather than see it go to waste for the garbage this kind of thing well then you're a person who's making a bunch of complex excuses for what could be a very simple moral position you know

I've said this a long time ago in a lot of context in real life cooperation and work with your your friends and colleagues what we mean by sanity is often very close to reliability with another person's reliable well not you can count on them you know that counts for a lot that matters a lot you know and it's very close to it's on the same being someone who's reliable and I don't even mean accountable but someone whose morality makes sense to the society around you it makes sense to yourself it's coherent it doesn't have these kinds of exceptions that's that's or something to me you know

Authenticity – Existential nihilism

You didn't make the purchase - the moral choice, well you didn't make the economic choice you didn't buy it you didn't pay for it but this still is support Lee a statement a decision about Who I am what kind of person will be I don't see that in terms of virtue ethics in the strict sense I see that as aspirational what kind of person do I aspire to be I aspire to the kind of person who doesn't compromise who never uses cocaine etc and I want to be the kind of person who never eats meat and it's a totally those are two totally attainable goals as long as you don’t get into making these kind of excuses for yourself.

In-group

We'll see if I live long enough to really live in a world where you look back on these days and miss them, when veganism had this kind of marginal position, I don't know, I mean we were looking at a small town in Michigan that actually has a vegan supermarket and we thought wow, wouldn’t that be amazing, imagine moving to that town just for that one supermarket and you know the comradery you would have with the owners and so on, as veganism get’s bigger that feeling of specialness is going to be diluted, that feeling of having a mission is gonna be deluded. I would love to believe we'll get stronger, but I don't think it will, in some ways it's going to become just another diet and some ways it's gonna become just another charity among the thousands asking for donations and so on

[brimstoneSalad]

It would be great to have this up on the channel.
It looks good so far. Let me know when you finish the script and I'll read over the rest & give feedback. Will you post it as a second half or maybe note changes in another color?

[NonZeroSum]

It would be great to have this up on the channel.
It looks good so far. Let me know when you finish the script and I'll read over the rest & give feedback. Will you post it as a second half or maybe note changes in another color?

Fab, thank you. I can do that, will throw it in the wiki if I loose track to see, before posting back to the forum. It's just good to have a conversation going about interesting titbits people find or can relate to with their experience, knowledge on subjects. The script above was knocked together in a morning mostly from comments already written to the people in question.

Seeing how true it is now that statement about how ends-consequentialists are in broad agreement bar some misunderstandings. I'm getting so way-layed with sourcing arguments from rules, it's all interesting threads though.

Ethologic doesn't want a culture that promotes animal eating, but sees rescuing any food as ethical with world misusing resources, people starving. Well put in video linked I think.

Liam is trying to straddle both philosophies, intensely concerned with supply-demand, but seeing the social in-group as being something important enough to go through rituals like asking servers to change their gloves, and calling anyone a flake and not vegan if you 'exploit' the dead bodies not commercially viable anymore.

Francione just anchored down so heavily on abolitionist approach, spectacle of imagery and social media change.

APV has an anti-capitalist critique of the price of consumer objects not matching the cost to the environment, promotes food not bombs for prefigurative redressing that balance a little, and black panthers free breakfast program in the past.

a-bas-le-ciel sees no value in one person deluding themselves about effect can have on consumer demand, but should think of themselves as part of political "animus," where dignity is prized. Likes the idea of organizing on the frontiers of new battles, doesn't want to see community of organizers reduced by those with little motivation hanging around muddying the water?

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, also this:

I accept consequentialist concerns such as quantifying material conditions at the base of society. These would include, each persons labor and educating and providing the capabilities to arrive at good consequences such as people being able to follow their own craft. But I feel like the culture that is created out of different egoist ethics is so broad that if you tried to drill down at the level of description you'd find a radical emptiness that allows us to define the limits of our own societies. I don't know if that's true existential nihilism.

No, I don't think that's existential nihilism. That's recognizing (as I do) that you can't force an idea of what people *should* want upon them.
People value different things, and as long as they aren't harming the interests of others we may not always be able to define what the perfect society looks like for everybody.

If I understand what you're saying here.

There’s also my interest in the Situationists concept of psycho-geographies, being able to cycle tour living frugally on land protests, doing a modicum of environmental consciousness raising through campaigns. The exploration of towns in the time between trains, the randomness of what you'll find, like a pram for a mother that will be able to let her kid sleep while they go out looking for a chance to stow away in a lorry, or lemons that you didn't know would help them prepare the citrus infused food that reminded them of home.

This never felt like a moral wrong. I experienced it as helping them get enough calories, find some comfort in being able to repeat habits from home, and preventing food waste.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Enabling people to enjoy more the meat they were already going to eat isn't causing more suffering. While intuitively sometimes we like to look at the world in karmic terms, where we see meat eaters as not *deserving* to enjoy their meals so it being some cosmic retribution to deny them that, I don't necessarily think that's good practice. So I don't think you were wrong. That is, if I understand what you're saying.

Though neither is karma necessarily always wrong in a rule-consequentialist sense, but people need to understand the causality behind it to make it meaningful and when there's that kind of disconnect (as there often is with meat) I don't think that's on the horizon.

[NonZeroSum]

Thanks again for the suggestions, in reverse order then..

Enabling people to enjoy more the meat they were already going to eat isn't causing more suffering. While intuitively sometimes we like to look at the world in karmic terms, where we see meat eaters as not *deserving* to enjoy their meals so it being some cosmic retribution to deny them that, I don't necessarily think that's good practice. So I don't think you were wrong. That is, if I understand what you're saying.

Though neither is karma necessarily always wrong in a rule-consequentialist sense, but people need to understand the causality behind it to make it meaningful and when there's that kind of disconnect (as there often is with meat) I don't think that's on the horizon.

I agree, and well put, there needs to be the oppurtunity to experience it as meaningful. There will also be the vegan advocates who say why were you spending any time doing that work in the first place when veganism is the most important struggle, but that's stupid easy to shoot down as simply something you want to learn in expanding your horizons, that expecting others to pick up veganism and revolve their whole life's meaning around it like Sorsha did with Pewdiepie is just naive and laughable.

France actually has some legislation encouraging it's biggest supermarkets to donate food going to waste to charity, when we got the chance we would drive an hour up the motorway in the van to Dunkirk to one of these distribution centres. The refugees could get really nutritionally poor soup once a day from a centre that used cheap staples. And in our cycling around the edges of town checking in with squats we could pick up tons of dumpstered bread and other packaged food in bike trailers to distribute that would have meant walking for hours out of town for the refugees. A small percentage of the refugees would be able to buy food for themselves from the money brought with them or transferred to them from family. Picking rosehips, blackberrys, sea-buckthorn, apples and finding lemons they could use then grating off the husks to make citrus jellies. We got arrested many times and pepper sprayed, always kept us in till maximum 24 hours and never charged.

https://calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/statement-from-the-women-of-boulevard-hugo-51/
https://activistjourneys.wordpress.com/an-experience-with-solidarity-activism/

No, I don't think that's existential nihilism. That's recognizing (as I do) that you can't force an idea of what people *should* want upon them.
People value different things, and as long as they aren't harming the interests of others we may not always be able to define what the perfect society looks like for everybody.

If I understand what you're saying here.

That's a fair understanding, is your position that because there is objective meaning in things such as the welfare of our common sentient animals that there simply is intrinsic meaning to our own personal lives?

The existential nihilist concern with existing first and then having to create essence, rather than having an eternal essence and being given a pre-ordained existence stated sufficiently broadly is unassailable aha, but the adoption of the school often orientates one to see meaning in the preservation of heterogeneous communities in society through solidarity, rather than try to bend them to one will, as an explicit conclusion. Because it's at those highest levels of subjectivity and intuition where unique poetry and meaning can be created, but is not a given.

The Scientific Image of Man
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3283

Stirner and the Politics of the Ego (Saul Newman)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3416

[brimstoneSalad]

That's a fair understanding, is your position that because there is objective meaning in things such as the welfare of our common sentient animals that there simply is intrinsic meaning to our own personal lives?

Basically, yes, although the question of meaning has a lot of baggage.

As long as we're talking about moral shoulds, if we were alone in the universe then existential nihilism may be all we could come to, but since we aren't and there are other beings that have interests we can have purpose in helping others; that is, we can consider their values, we don't have to make anything up from nothing.

If we ever reached the state of perfect moral harmony in the universe, then we might have a troubling question: what now?
But I don't think that's anything we need to grapple with today.

The existential nihilist concern with existing first and then having to create essence, rather than having an eternal essence and being given a pre-ordained existence stated sufficiently broadly is unassailable aha

Maybe, but the implication also could be that no essence is inherently preferable to any other. Maybe we're not creating essence from nothing, exactly, but deducing it based on something evident, and I don't think that's in line with existential nihilism.

I think there are some not often spoken implications there which may not bear out, at least in our current context of coming into existence in a meaning rich environment created by the interaction of pre-existing beings.

As individuals, we certainly aren't islands.
From a cultural perspective we aren't either (given animals, etc.).

but the adoption of the school often orientates one to see meaning in the preservation of heterogeneous communities in society through solidarity, rather than try to bend them to one will, as an explicit conclusion. Because it's at those highest levels of subjectivity and intuition where unique poetry and meaning can be created, but is not a given.

Sure, but I think that can happen within a non-nihilist consequentialist framework too.

The moral meaning we can find or deduce because of our context in the world isn't necessarily the only meaning people can have, and indeed it seems to rely on others creating meaning too (if nobody had any interests, it would be hard to help others in any way).

You can consider the existential freedom of adding more meaning to the world without assuming there's none there to begin with. They don't always have to be in strict competition, but can inform each other too.

[NonZeroSum]

The existential nihilist concern with existing first and then having to create essence, rather than having an eternal essence and being given a pre-ordained existence stated sufficiently broadly is unassailable aha

Maybe, but the implication also could be that no essence is inherently preferable to any other. Maybe we're not creating essence from nothing, exactly, but deducing it based on something evident, and I don't think that's in line with existential nihilism.

I think there are some not often spoken implications there which may not bear out, at least in our current context of coming into existence in a meaning rich environment created by the interaction of pre-existing beings.

As individuals, we certainly aren't islands.
From a cultural perspective we aren't either (given animals, etc.).

There are certainly desirable consequences, and the veil of ignorance should lead us to feel a great deal of compassion for animals who we know their biological imperative is to live simple enough lives. That we we would deprive them of those interests is a great harm if we know about the pain and try to bury the knowledge behind a pacivity to do the work of finding alternative practices in line with the reasons you value a specific culture.

So all arguments for purity in ideology from Eisel in relation to actions you can avoid, I think is that they're symbolic representations of compromise, e.g. we've done a disservice to the cats that we tolerated them to catch our rats for us, and then fed them all their food because we found them cute, that you're inabling pacivity, preventing them from playing a unique role in their habitat, having relationships and experiences with their environment and other cats in only a way they can relate to each other. So he's saying there's absolutely a moral good to connecting with the material process the object went on and feeling disgust towards it like waste meat. Not about reducing your personal impact but maximizing the good and feeling of comradary with other vegans with the same dignity not to do that.

Even though I want that culture without any more domestic animals or carnism, I still just see a win in the political act of rescuing animals and food going to be wasted, building relationships with the people that can benefit from those calories or companionship, where no positive change would happen otherwise.

but the adoption of the school often orientates one to see meaning in the preservation of heterogeneous communities in society through solidarity, rather than try to bend them to one will, as an explicit conclusion. Because it's at those highest levels of subjectivity and intuition where unique poetry and meaning can be created, but is not a given.

Sure, but I think that can happen within a non-nihilist consequentialist framework too.

The moral meaning we can find or deduce because of our context in the world isn't necessarily the only meaning people can have, and indeed it seems to rely on others creating meaning too (if nobody had any interests, it would be hard to help others in any way).

You can consider the existential freedom of adding more meaning to the world without assuming there's none there to begin with. They don't always have to be in strict competition, but can inform each other too.

Hmm I agree, but the simple contention is that there's no meaning until it's been created, until there's been movement, choices you made with what knowledge you had at your disposal. That life is conditioned by the not existing before hand and the not existing you return to, so although it's true that life is full of value and meaning rich experiences at your disposal, you're bound to being forced to live with the memories of experiences inacted on you, and muddling along with others who tried to inject a modicum of meaning into their experiences inacted on them, bound to be free. The realization that you've been living in bad faith when you've gotten into bad habits of pacivity, etc.