Post Whatever You Are Thinking At This Very Moment

[nicky wire's legs]

Yer Not Smart. Your arguments suck.

 

[Malarkey]

Nicky... who loves Hitler... agrees with you.

Doing well there.

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

Nicky... who loves Hitler... agrees with you.

Doing well there.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Nicky... who loves Hitler... agrees with you.

Doing well there.

Only because I'm related to him!!

 

[Loup]

If you're bringing superiority into it you're not coming from the left & I don't know why you bother pretending.

You know, Nerak, if you’re open to having an honest, intellectual discussion instead of going in circles, calling people names all the time and fleeing when you’re asked to go into detail, I’m all for it ! So far, you haven’t given me any genuine arguments to justify anything.

In case you didn’t know, a word can have different connotations depending on the context it’s being used in. I think you are aware of your insincerity here, along with your useless replies and ad hominem’s.

If you want to start heated debates about the earth‘s rotation and my left pinkie, too, I urge you to vent your frustrations elsewhere and leave me out of it.

 

[Malarkey]

You know, Nerak, if you’re open to having an honest, intellectual discussion instead of going in circles, calling people names all the time and fleeing when you’re asked to go into detail, I’m all for it ! So far, you haven’t given me any genuine arguments to justify anything.

In case you didn’t know, a word can have different connotations depending on the context it’s being used in. I think you are aware of your insincerity here, along with your useless replies and ad hominem’s.

If you want to start heated debates about the earth‘s rotation and my left pinkie, too, I urge you to vent your frustrations elsewhere and leave me out of it.

Lol.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

You're out of your depth, nerak!!

 

[Loup]

Lol.

What a constructive response here ! Very politely then : Va te faire foutre.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Dats right! Take that, malarkey!

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

What a constructive response here ! Very politely then : Va te faire foutre.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Malarkey decisively thwomped by a 17 year old!!

And I'm here for it!!

 

[Orange Crush]

Humans are objectively, intellectually superior to both animals and plants.

Mmmm. Some humans - my neighbour is as thick as a fence post.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I would be very curious to know your point of view on Nietzsche relating the consumption of meat to the concept of vitality, strength and will to power after giving up on his vegetarianism – do correct me if I’m wrong, but I have seen that point of view spread among his school of thought.

Portions of Nietzsche's philosophy are bizarre and macho-fetishistic, which I consider the dross. I prefer him for his insights into religion, but even there his innate weirdness occasionally intrudes. His favorite monotheism was Islam—for its virility and conquering spirit.

I don’t think humans or animals "should disappear", I think that is a nonquestion.
I think humans, from their conscious and moral superiority, should strive to protect animals in all ways possible. Humans have the right to act on nature when it has to be protected, but they cannot abuse it, or subject it to their insignificant whims and self-interests – such as eating a hamburger you’ll digest and forget about the next day.
I think animals should be offered a life of love and compassion.

How exactly should humans "strive to protect animals in all ways possible"? The carnivorous ones are a mortal danger to the herbivorous ones. Even if we could somehow euthanize all the carnivores, the herbivores would have to be mass-sterilized to prevent them from overpopulating and competing with each other for resources. And I don't think we have nearly enough veterinarians to take care of all the wild animals suffering from wounds, parasites, and disease.

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

Mmmm. Some humans - my neighbour is as thick as a fence post.

 

[Loup]

How exactly should humans "strive to protect animals in all ways possible"? The carnivorous ones are a mortal danger to the herbivorous ones. Even if we could somehow euthanize all the carnivores, the herbivores would have to be mass-sterilized to prevent them from overpopulating and competing with each other for resources. And I don't think we have nearly enough veterinarians to take care of all the wild animals suffering from wounds, parasites, and disease.

I must admit I'm taken aback by your examples of mass-sterilization and euthanization. I find it completely absurd... I've never had someone tell me this before.

Just like I think humans shouldn't have dominion over animals, I don't believe a group of humans should have dominion over another.
I don't see myself in a rival competition with anyone – which is why Nietzsche, at first glance, isn't really my cup of tea – and competition for resources doesn't exist in our consumerist world, where there is an abundance of unnecessary commodities and products.

The fact is this : the meat industry is completely irrational and artificial, being mainly supported through government subsidies. If it weren't, it would be statistically programmed to crash.

In France :

"Every year, French farmers receive more than 10 billion euros in public support. On average each of the 320,000 farms receives around 30,000 euros of direct payments [...] Livestock farming is particularly dependent on state aid, with subsidies amounting to 89% of income in dairy farming and 169% of income in the beef-cattle sector."
Jean-Christophe Bureau, Lionel Fontagné, Sébastien Jean. Time to Decide on French Agriculture.[Research Report] 2015-27, Conseil d’Analyse Economique. 2015.

I don't get your point about veterinarians, or the fictional dynasties in the war of "carnivores v.s. herbivores".
Animals are bred into existence in order to be consumed, 200 million being slaughtered every single day. If they weren't, not only would there be significantly less of them but the overall amount of exploited crops would also be reduced.

Meat eaters shouldn't be vilified, most people are and it's often an unconscious choice they don't question or actively get to "decide".
This is something wanted by the animal industries : why do egg packets show chickens running in fields happily, and not the macerators of chick culling, much like cigarette packets do so with crying mothers, metastatic cancers and diseased organs ?

At the end of the day, I just wish for people to make rational decisions which aren't logically inconsistent with their ideals - such as eating a cow and finding it morally outrageous for other people to do so with dogs, because dogs are more valued to us culturally, and we have a more direct contact with.
I despise when others try to make animal slaughtering sound "ethical" and done in "compassionate circumstances" to justify paying for animal cruelty.
Compassion means empathy, understanding, kindness. Slaughter is slaughter, point-blank.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I must admit I'm taken aback by your examples of mass-sterilization and euthanization. I find it completely absurd... I've never had someone tell me this before.

Just like I think humans shouldn't have dominion over animals, I don't believe a group of humans should have dominion over another.
I don't see myself in a rival competition with anyone – which is why Nietzsche, at first glance, isn't really my cup of tea – and competition for resources doesn't exist in our consumerist world, where there is an abundance of unnecessary commodities and products.

The fact is this : the meat industry is completely irrational and artificial, being mainly supported through government subsidies. If it weren't, it would be statistically programmed to crash.

We may be talking at cross-purposes somewhat. I am a vegan like yourself and I believe we have an ethical obligation to reduce the amount of animal suffering we cause. But there's no way we can not cause animal suffering. Even if we just eat plants, we cause animal suffering whenever we till a field and chop up all the rabbits and snakes and critters that live there. And what about the plants we grow just for pleasure? Must I cut out alcoholic drinks and tea? I don't need them to physically survive, but I need them to psychologically make it through the day. The only diet that causes no animal suffering whatsoever would be to forage for nuts, berries, mushrooms and carrion in the wild.

My point about euthanizing and sterilizing wild animals was on the subject of whether animals would be better off if they all disappeared. You said that was a "nonquestion," but I respectfully disagree. In your studies or for your pleasure, have you ever read Schopenhauer's essay On the Sufferings of the World? He said it would surely be better (in terms of human and animal suffering) if life on earth was completely wiped out, and the earth was as barren as the moon. Animal suffering would be reduced to zero.

Nietzsche responded in I think Beyond Good and Evil by saying that if Schopenhauer thought existence was so bad, why did he (Schopenhauer) bother sticking around? Why didn't he put his pistol to good use and opt out, and rid the world of one more suffering-causing entity? Nietzsche said it was probably because Schopenhauer took too much perverse pleasure in haranguing his enemies and going to the opera. Nietzsche was right. By choosing not to opt out, we are saying "yes" to our own petty pleasures at the expense of all the sufferings we inevitably cause.

 

[Loup]

We may be talking at cross-purposes somewhat. I am a vegan like yourself and I believe we have an ethical obligation to reduce the amount of animal suffering we cause. But there's no way we can not cause animal suffering. Even if we just eat plants, we cause animal suffering whenever we till a field and chop up all the rabbits and snakes and critters that live there. And what about the plants we grow just for pleasure? Must I cut out alcoholic drinks and tea? I don't need them to physically survive, but I need them to psychologically make it through the day. The only diet that causes no animal suffering whatsoever would be to forage for nuts, berries, mushrooms and carrion in the wild.

My point about euthanizing and sterilizing wild animals was on the subject of whether animals would be better off if they all disappeared. You said that was a "nonquestion," but I respectfully disagree. In your studies or for your pleasure, have you ever read Schopenhauer's essay On the Sufferings of the World? He said it would surely be better (in terms of human and animal suffering) if life on earth was completely wiped out, and the earth was as barren as the moon. Animal suffering would be reduced to zero.

Nietzsche responded in I think Beyond Good and Evil by saying that if Schopenhauer thought existence was so bad, why did he (Schopenhauer) bother sticking around? Why didn't he put his pistol to good use and opt out, and rid the world of one more suffering-causing entity? Nietzsche said it was probably because Schopenhauer took too much perverse pleasure in haranguing his enemies and going to the opera. Nietzsche was right. By choosing not to opt out, we are saying "yes" to our own petty pleasures at the expense of all the sufferings we inevitably cause.

I understand much better now – thank you.
Still, I personally do not like to perceive life in such a pessimistic manner, seeing our simple existence as a terrible misfortune or wondering about the "what if’s" of a fictional scenario where we would all be wiped out.

I will look into Schopenhauer. I‘ve only studied extracts of The World as Will and Representation, regarding the Self, which I liked a lot.
I have to say I have a bit more fun studying names like Bergson, or Alain, on subjects like time, language or the arts…I’m certain some books will come to me with age, I just really can’t stand pondering on the misery of existence for now.

Actually, I just realized I misinterpreted your first message horribly, as I thought
you were speaking about carnivore and herbivore humans, which is why I was so appalled. I was immediately led to thinking of this guy I had listened to who used an insane type of jargon : "alphas and betas competing for resources", "carnivorous hunters thriving" and such…omfg.

It’s clear I need more sleep now, Nerak’s brainrot and yesterday’s exam knocked me out

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I understand much better now – thank you.
Still, I personally do not like to perceive life in such a pessimistic manner, seeing our simple existence as a terrible misfortune or wondering about the "what if’s" of a fictional scenario where we would all be wiped out.

I will look into Schopenhauer. I‘ve only studied extracts of The World as Will and Representation, regarding the Self, which I liked a lot.
I have to say I have a bit more fun studying names like Bergson, or Alain, on subjects like time, language or the arts…I’m certain some books will come to me with age, I just really can’t stand pondering on the misery of existence for now.

Actually, I just realized I misinterpreted your first message horribly, as I thought
you were speaking about carnivore and herbivore humans, which is why I was so appalled. I was immediately led to thinking of this guy I had listened to who used an insane type of jargon : "alphas and betas competing for resources", "carnivorous hunters thriving" and such…omfg.

It’s clear I need more sleep now, Nerak’s brainrot and yesterday’s exam knocked me out

Nerak ruins just about every other discussion on here by injecting her pet conspiracy theory where she's paranoid many of us are racist Nazis with hidden agendas. She's best ignored, or occasionally indulged for comedic value.

I have never read Henri Bergson, but I listened to a podcast about him and his thoughts on time were interesting. I really like his lesser-known sister, though, Mina Bergson/Moina Mathers: writer, illustrator, Jewess-turned-esoterist, and wife of the British occultist S.L. MacGregor Mathers. They were mentors to a young Aleister Crowley until he turned on them, and they were vegetarian and (uncommon for their time) possibly vegan. I think Yeats, who was friends with them, complained somewhere that they didn't even have dairy when they had him for dinner.

 

[Loup]

Nerak ruins just about every other discussion on here by injecting her pet conspiracy theory where she's paranoid many of us are racist Nazis with hidden agendas. She's best ignored, or occasionally indulged for comedic value.

I have never read Henri Bergson, but I listened to a podcast about him and his thoughts on time were interesting. I really like his lesser-known sister, though, Mina Bergson/Moina Mathers: writer, illustrator, Jewess-turned-esoterist, and wife of the British occultist S.L. MacGregor Mathers. They were mentors to a young Aleister Crowley until he turned on them, and they were vegetarian and (uncommon for their time) possibly vegan. I think Yeats, who was friends with them, complained somewhere that they didn't even have dairy when they had him for dinner.

Henri Bergson is amazing to read!
His entire philosophy revolves around time and the ways in which our subjective perception of it differs so much from its scientific measurement, which visualises it in space.
In his considerations of artists, his words remind me a lot of Rimbaud's: "Il faut être voyant, se faire voyant."
There's a really great philosopher and university teacher, Frédéric Worms, who dedicated a series of CDs to analysing Bergson – unfortunately, though, they're all in French...

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Henri Bergson is amazing to read!
His entire philosophy revolves around time and the ways in which our subjective perception of it differs so much from its scientific measurement, which visualises it in space.
In his considerations of artists, his words remind me a lot of Rimbaud's: "Il faut être voyant, se faire voyant."
There's a really great philosopher and university teacher, Frédéric Worms, who dedicated a series of CDs to analysing Bergson – unfortunately, though, they're all in French...

Ah, too bad there's no translation audio. There aren't many English translations of your compatriot Michel Onfray, either. He's kind of a "pop philosophy" writer from what I gather, but he's also supposed to be an insightful commentator on Nietzsche and Epicurus. He came onto my radar with an excellent essay about Jean Meslier, the curé who wrote his thousand-page atheist tract in secret over many years and left it behind as his posthumous testament. What a marvelous specimen Meslier was. Onfray also believes in the Mythological Jesus hypothesis, something I'm interested in / slowly coming around to.

You're exceptionally well-read for seventeen. Is the French education system very good, or are you just a voracious reader?