3 ms·

Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depo

by fleitz 16y ago

Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits of turkey. More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic timescales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead animals. 1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same. If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and not consume it? 2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or unwilling to meet themselves. 3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest Proposals in order to communicate effectively. 4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and money than by casting votes. 5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you find it convenient.

abeppu 16y ago
I think you're attacking a straw man who you want to represent all vegetarians and vegans. Different people make the choice to give up meat for different reasons, they define veganism and vegetarianism with differing boundaries, and they practice with various levels of consistency. There's no one vegan or vegetarian moral code for you to find hypocritical, or one set of goals that vegans and vegetarians are all trying to achieve. But in point #1 above, I think you drifted off course; the problem from my perspective isn't dead animals but rather killing animals needlessly. An animal which was dead eons before I was born is not my moral responsibility. It is my responsibility if an animal dies so that I can eat steak, if I could have just as easily had beans.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Indeed. It's an attempt to make things black and white when they're grey. In the same way you could argue that unless you become completely carbon neutral any attempt to minimise your carbon output is pointless, or indeed if you can't stop all crime, why bother trying and stop any. Most vegetarians aren't hypocritical because they don't claim perfection, they just claim to be doing more in this one regard than the average and in that respect they're normally correct.
pyre 16y ago
> Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization > > I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits > of turkey. > > More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by > thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic > timescales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation > Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead > animals. > > 1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that > putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same. > If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would > consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any > different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and > not consume it? You're equating the killing of animals with the death of animals. The animals that died eons ago to make oil were not killed by beings that had an active choice to make (i.e. "Do I kill this animal, or do I not kill this animal?"). An animal that died of natural causes was not killed, and a T-Rex (or a lion for that matter) does not have a moral dilemma when it comes to mealtime. The only possible exception here is if you wish to postulate that some or all of the animals that crude oil comes from were killed by intelligent (and sentient) extra-terrestrial or terrestrial beings that left no trace behind for us to find. I'm also clueless as to why you question if it's ok to kill an animal for no reason and not consume it. Most of the animal-based products that we have on the market today come from animals that humans have raised, and killed for the expressed purpose of creating that product. Do you not realize that these animals would not be killed if there were no demand for these products (or at least only a demand for similar products that were not animal-based -- e.g. faux leather). > 2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your > moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as > someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or > unwilling to meet themselves. Please point to where I was advocating a standard. > 3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively > communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code > of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons > are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are > not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy > then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest > Proposals in order to communicate effectively. So you advocate ad hominem attacks on people based on some sort of stereotype that you have in your own mind, but which really doesn't match reality? As others have stated, you're trying to take the adjective 'vegan' and create your own definition of it based on the negative view you have of what some of the people it describes believe. To use a religion analogy, you're trying to condemn all Christians based on the actions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in no way represents all Christian religions, but they are seen as the 'canonical' Christian religion in most people's minds. But in this case it's even worse, because the view points that you are attacking aren't even associated with some proper group or institution. It's just a view point that some people who are vegetarian/vegan hold. > 4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral > system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and > money than by casting votes. You're sort of missing the point that I was making with that comment. I was just using a common defeatist view point in pop-culture as an example. > 5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that > don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life > according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains > arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you > find it convenient. Where did I define my moral code for your review? Yet you assume that you know what it is, and attempt to viciously attack it to (presumably) gain some sort of personal satisfaction that you have 'proved' that you are right and someone else is wrong on the internet? I also question why you are attempting to tell others that their moral code should be black-and-white. Is you own personal moral code this black-and-white? Is murder is always murder, and self-defense is no excuse? Or do you allow an exception in that case? A picture of a naked child is always child pornography, even if it's just the 'classic' bathtime photo of a baby? Are these not 'arbitrary exceptions?'

by fleitz 16y ago

abeppu 16y ago

I think you're attacking a straw man who you want to represent all vegetarians and vegans. Different people make the choice to give up meat for different reasons, they define veganism and vegetarianism with differing boundaries, and they practice with various levels of consistency. There's no one vegan or vegetarian moral code for you to find hypocritical, or one set of goals that vegans and vegetarians are all trying to achieve. But in point #1 above, I think you drifted off course; the problem from my perspective isn't dead animals but rather killing animals needlessly. An animal which was dead eons before I was born is not my moral responsibility. It is my responsibility if an animal dies so that I can eat steak, if I could have just as easily had beans.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Indeed. It's an attempt to make things black and white when they're grey. In the same way you could argue that unless you become completely carbon neutral any attempt to minimise your carbon output is pointless, or indeed if you can't stop all crime, why bother trying and stop any. Most vegetarians aren't hypocritical because they don't claim perfection, they just claim to be doing more in this one regard than the average and in that respect they're normally correct.

pyre 16y ago

> Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization > > I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits > of turkey. > > More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by > thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic > timescales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation > Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead > animals. > > 1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that > putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same. > If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would > consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any > different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and > not consume it? You're equating the killing of animals with the death of animals. The animals that died eons ago to make oil were not killed by beings that had an active choice to make (i.e. "Do I kill this animal, or do I not kill this animal?"). An animal that died of natural causes was not killed, and a T-Rex (or a lion for that matter) does not have a moral dilemma when it comes to mealtime. The only possible exception here is if you wish to postulate that some or all of the animals that crude oil comes from were killed by intelligent (and sentient) extra-terrestrial or terrestrial beings that left no trace behind for us to find. I'm also clueless as to why you question if it's ok to kill an animal for no reason and not consume it. Most of the animal-based products that we have on the market today come from animals that humans have raised, and killed for the expressed purpose of creating that product. Do you not realize that these animals would not be killed if there were no demand for these products (or at least only a demand for similar products that were not animal-based -- e.g. faux leather). > 2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your > moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as > someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or > unwilling to meet themselves. Please point to where I was advocating a standard. > 3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively > communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code > of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons > are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are > not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy > then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest > Proposals in order to communicate effectively. So you advocate ad hominem attacks on people based on some sort of stereotype that you have in your own mind, but which really doesn't match reality? As others have stated, you're trying to take the adjective 'vegan' and create your own definition of it based on the negative view you have of what some of the people it describes believe. To use a religion analogy, you're trying to condemn all Christians based on the actions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in no way represents all Christian religions, but they are seen as the 'canonical' Christian religion in most people's minds. But in this case it's even worse, because the view points that you are attacking aren't even associated with some proper group or institution. It's just a view point that some people who are vegetarian/vegan hold. > 4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral > system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and > money than by casting votes. You're sort of missing the point that I was making with that comment. I was just using a common defeatist view point in pop-culture as an example. > 5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that > don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life > according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains > arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you > find it convenient. Where did I define my moral code for your review? Yet you assume that you know what it is, and attempt to viciously attack it to (presumably) gain some sort of personal satisfaction that you have 'proved' that you are right and someone else is wrong on the internet? I also question why you are attempting to tell others that their moral code should be black-and-white. Is you own personal moral code this black-and-white? Is murder is always murder, and self-defense is no excuse? Or do you allow an exception in that case? A picture of a naked child is always child pornography, even if it's just the 'classic' bathtime photo of a baby? Are these not 'arbitrary exceptions?'