Philosophical Vegan Forum

Regardless of how it may look like, i did NOT come here with the intention of being a troll. My username isn't a joke. I don't just enjoy eating meat. I enjoy knowing that we, human beings, rule the planet, and that animals exist to give their lives for our pleasure. I will, without a doubt, be spending almost ALL of my time in vegan vs. non-vegan type forums.

They don't "give" us their lives any more than rape victims voluntarily give rapists their body sexually. Neither do they exist "to do" this. We forcefully breed them into existence. Carnist doublespeak.

If not just a common troll, and with that kind of language, he or she is more likely not just a carnist, but also holds some bizarre anti-scientific metaphysical and pseudo-philosophical worldview propping up actual mental illness.

At the best, some kind of pantheistic pagan who reveres or worships the old gods of the Norse or Saxons, whether or not he or she considers them as literal, possibly neo-nazi inclinations.
At the worst, and more likely (and more banal), some kind of autotheist/suitheist, egoist, and narcissist.

wikipedia wrote:People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.[5]

He (probably he) is most likely drawing from a mix of pseudo-philosophy like Satanism, Rand, and a profound misunderstanding of evolution/social Darwinism with the belief that "might makes right" in attempt to normalize and justify his mental illness, but not even the worst Randroids habitually talk like this -- this isn't normal.

I would guess that like most of these anti-morality crusaders he has never actually read Nietzsche (or any objective scholarly work reflecting on Nietzsche) but thinks he's a messiah come to extol the virtues of psychopathy despite not understanding his work (which in many respects was the opposite, Nietzsche being one of the most widely misunderstood philosophers of all time).

Sadistic I Am wrote:I will, without a doubt, be spending almost ALL of my time in vegan vs. non-vegan type forums.

You have led me to believe that you are unwell. In my opinion, you should be spending most of your time in therapy, not on the internet gratifying your narcissism with conflict; yours is not a healthy outlook on the world.

Do you have health insurance?

garrethdsouza wrote:They don't "give" us their lives any more than rape victims voluntarily give rapists their body sexually. Neither do they exist "to do" this. We forcefully breed them into existence. Carnist doublespeak.

Yes. Perhaps they don't "give" their bodies, but rather we take them and there's nothing they can do. Which, by the way, is twice as arousing. Regardless of how wrong it is, it's happening anyway. I doubt there's much you vegans can do about it either. Dunno how many others feel the same, but you'd have to KILL me to stop me from devouring cute little farm animals.

You have led me to believe that you are unwell. In my opinion, you should be spending most of your time in therapy, not on the internet gratifying your narcissism with conflict; yours is not a healthy outlook on the world.

Instead of telling me how "unwell" I am and how i'm Joker-level insane and need therapy, would you care to attempt to convince me otherwise? It's already been established that animals are sentient. Why should we care when we have the power to control them?

Sadistic I Am wrote: Yes. Perhaps they don't "give" their bodies, but rather we take them and there's nothing they can do. Which, by the way, is twice as arousing. Regardless of how wrong it is, it's happening anyway.

Oh.
You're either a troll, or you're mentally ill.
I can't tell which, but you're not half as invested as I thought you might be. Which is half relieving (because it means you can be banned, since you're not making any arguments), but also half disappointing (because there's no discussion to be had -- as a forum, we thrive on discussion, and the most active discussions are with people who present disagreement).

You don't seem to be interested in justifying or normalizing yourself. And to that end, since you don't seem to be interested in participating in rational discussion on any subject we discuss here, but in flaunting your sexual fetishes to shock others, in practice (whether a mere troll or mentally ill) all you can do here is troll.
It's really not that shocking, trolls do that all of the time (although they're usually lying when they do).
It's boring.

As to your mental illness, if that's the case (I'm sorry to hear if it is) we can't help you, you need professional help, so there's really no reason for you to be here other than to troll. There aren't very many good treatments for your condition, although castration and partial lobotomy could help, research on the subject seems sparse.

Sadistic I Am wrote: I doubt there's much you vegans can do about it either.

Most people aren't like you.
Statistically, one would expect there to be a very small minority of people who are both psychopaths (lacking empathy for others) and sadists (enjoyment from inflicting pain and suffering).
Sadism is kind of pedestrian, apparently you just happen to be a natural psychopath too (which is less common).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8272448 possibly 8.1% Sadists, and about 1% for psychopaths.
There could be as many as one in a thousand like you, or perhaps about seven million on Earth.

This is a fact. So what? If you just so happen to be that, do you expect us to find that interesting? We already know there are sick people out there, from animal abusers to pedophiles. Is meeting one supposed to surprise us and frighten us?

Vegans can do something about the other 99.9% by appealing to their senses of decency through empathy or prudence (even psychopaths can be reasonable if they are intelligent and not seized by sexual urges they choose not to control).

If the other 99.9% of society recognizes that it's wrong to cause unnecessary animal suffering, there's nothing you can do about it aside from be a criminal and torture small animals in secret.
Of course, we can no more stop you from doing that than the government can stop people now from cooking meth in their basements.

Sadistic I Am wrote: Dunno how many others feel the same, but you'd have to KILL me to stop me from devouring cute little farm animals.

Like I said, probably around one in a thousand. But it would not be necessarily to KILL you to stop you. The difficult part is discovering that you're torturing small animals in your basement. You're a needle in a haystack, and you probably know it already. Criminals driven by sadistic sexual urges are hard to catch since there's no clear motive linking them to the victims, and torturing non-human animals is even harder to find out because it's less likely to be noticed than a missing child.

Once you are found, as I mentioned, there's castration, lobotomy, and various other procedures which could stop you. And, of course, the traditional just locking you up. That's a matter of law, not what I do personally.

Even without outlawing the practice of eating meat in particular, there's a high statistical probability that you're a rapist, and physically abusive to those around you (as well as engage in animal cruelty at home, which is illegal). We can only hope due process of law will catch you eventually and lock you away where you can't harm others.
I'm more concerned about the danger you pose to other humans than your habit of eating meat. People who enjoy the suffering of non-human animals don't stop there.

That said, though, you may also just be a classic troll.

The bottom line is that you're not even trying to rationalize it with pseudo-philosophy now, which means you're not engaging in discussions, so you're boring no matter what you claim to enjoy, and of no use here.

Go troll somewhere else where you'll get more of a rise out of people. And if you're really not a troll, as you claim, please seek help.

Sadistic I Am wrote: Instead of telling me how "unwell" I am and how i'm Joker-level insane and need therapy, would you care to attempt to convince me otherwise?

Like I said, you need therapy for that. It may be something a psychologist can help with, it could also be physiological.
I'm not a professional psychologist, I can neither devote the time to your therapy, nor prescribe you needed medication to manage your condition.

If you're honestly not a troll, go seek help.

Sadistic I Am wrote: It's already been established that animals are sentient. Why should we care when we have the power to control them?

99% of people inherently care, because they're not psychopaths.
For the same reason many white people cared about ending slavery, even though whites had the power to largely control blacks at the time (and those who didn't came up with crazy excuses to manage their cognitive dissonance: the pseudo-philosophy I was talking about).
If you have some of those crazy excuses, we can debunk them, that's what we do.

Normal, psychologically stable human beings have something called empathy, and that makes us care for the suffering of others. Not only our biological family, but friends, strangers, and other species. When normal humans are causing suffering to others, they're compelled to care, and have to come up with all kinds of nonsense to justify the suffering -- it's that nonsense which is easy to debunk, revealing the default condition of giving a shit about the suffering of others.
Life isn't just about using others to get your rocks off, indifferent to the consequences.

Seek professional help.
If you're looking for an argument from self-interest to care about others, you're missing the point.

If you cared about your health, I could convince you not to eat animal products, but I doubt I could convince you not to catch and torture small animals in your basement. And you may even turn to humans, raping and murdering, or doing whatever it takes to gratify yourself. I can't see how that would be of much use, and you'd end up living longer to do more harm to others because you weren't eating animal products.
Why would I want to convince you of that?

I assure you that I am not a troll and share my worldview with utmost seriousness. I'm a firm supporter of survival of the fittest, and have no qualms using my superior intellect and evolutionary traits to dominate a less fortunate species and end their inferior lives. The erotic thrills are just a bonus. It is human nature to dominate, and animals WILL be eaten for as long as there are humans to eat them. Their fate is sealed. Good sir, I hope that you will someday accept this fact, and embrace it.

Sadistic I Am wrote:I assure you that I am not a troll and share my worldview with utmost seriousness.

Do you understand the difference between posts that say, in short, animal suffering is a turn on for you and you enjoy it, compared to the most recent post you made which presented something which can actually be discussed?

The difference is that you've finally made something that at least you apparently think is an argument (although I will explain over the next few posts why it's a failed attempt), so you won't be banned right now. Keep up the attempt to clarify your position and keep trying to make actual arguments, and you will be safe. Remember, this is a discussion forum, if you're saying something that isn't conducive to discussion like just flaunting your sadism to shock people, it doesn't belong here.

You don't have to be polite, but you do have to provide substance in your posts, rather than just repeatedly commenting on how much you love the suffering of others. You should also make a good faith effort to answer questions when they are posed to you.

We're going to go step by step here. You will need to acknowledge your mistakes in one part before I spend time correcting other misconceptions (because I do not trust you to read or understand multiple points at once).
I also want to encourage others not to jump the gun on his other errors until he replies to the first one satisfactorily, and just to address one point at a time after he does. Please try to summarize the things he needs to accept and understand after each post so he doesn't get confused.

Sadistic I Am wrote:I'm a firm supporter of survival of the fittest,

That's like saying "I'm a firm supporter of gravity".

You need to understand the appeal to nature fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
As well as the "Is ought problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Read, and become less ignorant. If you make a claim like this again, we will know you're trolling and aren't paying attention to what anybody else says.

You can't support "survival of the fittest" any more than you can support gravity; it's just a fact of natural selection the way gravity is a force of physics.
It doesn't need or want your support, it's just a fact.

What you're arguing is "not even wrong"
Read this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
That doesn't mean it's right, it means you don't even understand enough about the subject to make an argument, and what you've said is so incoherent it has no truth value to it (that's much worse than merely being wrong).

Gravity is not goal oriented any more than evolution is.
The goal of gravity is not to make things fall; that's just what ultimately tends to happen in everyday life.
Likewise, the goal of evolution is not to fight different species against each other and see which one wins -- that's a moronic misunderstanding of evolution that makes the likes of Ken Ham look competent -- survival of the fittest [particularly genes] just means that heritable traits that make a species more suitable to its environment/contribute more to the next generation are usually carried on more (this is not always the case, since dumb luck intervenes sometimes, but it being usually the case is what drives evolution).

Your homework:

1. Read all of that, and at least skim the contents of those three links.
2. Confirm that you understand the difference between the trollish posts you were making, and posts containing something resembling an argument.
3. Confirm that you understand that you can not "support" survival of the fittest as a goal, since it is not goal oriented, but a mere fact of natural selection.

When you do all three of those, we can move on to the next set of fallacies you made.

Oh...

It seems I'm backed into a corner. Very well, I comply to 1, 2, and 3.