Cow eating chicken
youtu.be

The video is to prove a point really fast, but, cows actually do only eat proteins. They have three stomachs that they use to feed grass to bacterial colonies, which they then pull into their fourth stomach to eat, with any of the grass that's left un-eaten by the bacteria being shit straight out without being processed any further. They don't eat the grass, the grass is there to feed what they do eat, which is supplemented by eating any large animal small enough to fit in their mouth. I read a study once that almost all cows when dissected had at least 1 animal in their digestive system at a time.

The notion that cows are good peaceful harmless herbivores who eat nothing but grass is nonsense. Here's a video of a cow eating the corpse of a donkey. Of note: there's grass right next to the body. And it isn't just a result of cows being fucked up by human domestication, wild deer (who you cannot blame on humans malnourishing it or contaminating its feed or whatever) do it too.

constructing an elaborate worldview out of a kindergarten level understanding of biology and then getting extremely smug about it annoys me relentlessly. Cows would eat you if they had the chance

  • volkvulture [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    You again are misinterpreting what I've said here. We can't humanize non-human animals, nor apply human-human morality to animal ethical concerns, and this is largely but not totally due to the fact that animals aren't subject to human interpersonal/cultural, jurisprudential, or legal ethics.

    I agree it's possible to treat animals ethically with regard to human-animal morality, and it remains true that applying a "human framework" isn't relevant in this instance.

    Yes, I do expect animals to not attack or be violent toward humans (while realizing these animals do not operate or make decisions on the same ethical/rational level as humans). I also said that animals that do attack humans are usually & justifiably removed or forcibly prevented from repeating such attacks. They also aren't subject to criminal prosecution or human morality in these instances.

    So I am still not sure what you're contending with exactly, outside of your mischaracterizations of what I've said

    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      We can’t humanize non-human animals, nor apply human-human morality to animal ethical concerns, and this is largely but not totally due to the fact that animals aren’t subject to human cultural, jurisprudential, or legal ethics.

      Okay, but as we know, not eating an animal is *not * the same as humanizing them or applying human-human morality.

      I agree it’s possible to treat animals ethically with regard to human-animal morality, and it remains true that applying a “human framework” isn’t relevant in this instance.

      So if (just as a possibility) it was ethical to refrain from eating animals, this would not require animals themselves to refrain from eating animals. This is in opposition to the assertion “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."

      • volkvulture [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Consciously choosing to not eat animals isn't the same as humanizing them, I agree. I also think it's a perfectly valid personal decision based on personal calculations

        Your hypothetical seems strangely generous to your own position. Can we also imagine (just as a possibility) that it is amoral or not always unethical for humans to eat animals?

        Either hypothetical is not in opposition to my assertion.

        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Your hypothetical seems strangely generous to your own position. Can we also imagine (just as a possibility) that it is amoral or not always unethical for humans to eat animals?

          We could absolutely assume as a hypothetical the position it's in fact a moral good to eat animals.

          Okay, now we've considered it.

          Back to the question of whether it's true that “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." It is not. If we take the hypothetical position for argument's sake that eating animals *was * ethically bad, it does not follow that we would then have to apply the framework eating animals is bad to animals themselves.

          • volkvulture [none/use name]
            ·
            3 years ago

            We are not taking your hypothetical position for argument's sake though, that's why we're discussing this

            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
              ·
              3 years ago

              We are not taking your hypothetical position for argument’s sake though, that’s why we’re discussing this

              No, as I've said repeatedly I am not actually debating whether eating animal meat is good or not. I'm arguing that it does not follow that for animals to be an object of human ethical consideration animals themselves must follow this morality, in contradistinction to your statement “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." The hypothetical only illustrates by substitution that the logical form remains valid and the assertion that the same framework must apply to animals is false.

              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                ·
                3 years ago

                We can't humanize/personify animals and then neglect to apply that framework & expectations of moral behavior from animals themselves. You've already said that you don't personify animals, and then you also said that you don't expect animals to behave under human moral limitations. So you've agreed with the statement in your responses

                Therefore, the statement still stands

                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  We can’t humanize/personify animals

                  We're not.

                  and then neglect to apply that framework & expectations of moral behavior from animals themselves

                  Not eating animals does not require any humanizing or personifying animals.

                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    I agree we aren't

                    Not eating animals does not require more than the valid personal decision to not eat animals

                    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                      ·
                      3 years ago

                      Not eating animals does not require more than the valid personal decision to not eat animals

                      Right, and also refraining from eating animals as an ethical decision does not require animals following along.

                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                          ·
                          3 years ago

                          “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."

                          Let's break down the ideas, bit by bit.

                          you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals

                          1.a. We don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals.

                          using this ethical framework

                          1.b. The framework here is understood to mean refraining from eating other animals.

                          and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves

                          2) Animals must apply the framework to themselves if we are to keep the framework (1.b) of not eating animals. You then illustrate in your next sentence, (2.a) "should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?"

                          The rhetorical answer to this question is we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick. The effect of this is to reinforce the clauses outlined above, which connect the act of not eating the animal (1.b ) with humanizing or personifying the animal (1.a), resulting in the scenario that animals would have to follow human morality (2) as illustrated by 2.a (shaming cows for eating chicks).

                          If either of my summaries of 1.a, 1.b or 2 are incorrect readings of the points outlined, please clarify.

                          • volkvulture [none/use name]
                            ·
                            3 years ago

                            I am saying we don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals. That's all I've said this whole time. No, the framework is not understood to mean that, it's understood to mean the personifying & humanizing & essentializing of human-human ethical considerations within animal behaviors.

                            I said we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick, because I think it's silly to do so. And you agree that we shouldn't do that.

                            You've already said that you don't personify/humanize animals, and then you said that you don't apply those ethical frameworks to animals.

                            So right now, you're hand-waving & deflecting & trying to make an enormous ordeal out of agreeing with me

                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                              ·
                              3 years ago

                              When you said "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" and then provide an example of shaming a cow for eating a chick, you are in fact not saying that refraining from eating animals requires animals to be shamed for the same.

                              So your position is that it can be ethical to not eat animals and this would not require animals to have the same morality.

                              I haven't the time or inclination to track down any of the other myriad errors in labyrinthine side points, but the acknowledgement that we could hold the ethical principles not to eat animals without requiring animals to have the same principle is sufficient.

                              If the statement "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" is unrelated to not eating animals, this is a significant error in communication.

                              You can attempt to protest here that it was somehow clear, but a quick review of the number of other people who interpreted your statement that way coupled with the lack of any coherent rejoinder to this objection suggests some self-work in your communication skills would benefit you greatly. The other option is to insist everyone misinterpreting your statement has the issue, and not your communication, which would also recommend some interpersonal development.

                              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                ·
                                3 years ago

                                I said you can't humanize or personify non-humans animals, and you agreed with me. Then I said we can't apply human-human ethical frameworks to animal behaviors, and you agreed with that also. I didn't provide the example. The example is literally the video in OP's link.

                                My position is that it's not unethical to not eat animals, but shaming others who do is also not constructive or consistent.

                                You seem to have a lot of time to agree with me & spin your wheels here, and yet it was only you and one other person who misinterpreted what I said. You doubled down on this misinterpretation, and then tripled down. Yet my original statement still holds, mostly because you agreed with it in different places.

                                You are making significant errors in communication by dragging this simple exchange over several days to nitpick a statement that you've agreed with in multiple previous messages. I know you're here in bad faith, but your faux-pedantic "exacting logician scold" schtick really isn't moving the meter here.

                                I haven't protested anything, you're still just making sure that the miscommunication is furthered here by wagging your finger and pretending you're offering legitimate criticism or good natured correction. You admit you didn't read what I've said correctly, and yet still try to project that onto me lol.

                                "self-work"? is that you just being silly now? If you didn't have all this time to belabor one sentence that you are purposely misreading, then I would almost think you were trolling.

                                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                  ·
                                  3 years ago

                                  Then I said we can’t apply human-human ethical frameworks to animal behaviors, and you agreed with that also.

                                  Yes, and as I've said repeatedly refraining from eating animals is not a human-human ethical framework, so instead we can apply human-animal ethics which refrains from eating animals.

                                  My position is that it’s not unethical to not eat animals, but shaming others who do is also not constructive or consistent.

                                  Right, awesome, and if your position when you said “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves" is not that "to refrain from animals as an ethical choice would require animals to do so as well" I can point you to the other visible interpretations of your comment to that effect. That should really make you ponder why multiple would be interpreting it that. Refusal to do so, yeah, emotional work if not more pronounced therapy. It can do wonders.

                                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                    ·
                                    3 years ago

                                    No, human-animal ethics doesn't require everyone to refrain from eating animals, and we can outline & legally posit ethical treatment without trying to get others to accept our own personal dogma about never eating or using animal products.

                                    I didn't say it was an ethical choice to not eat animals, I said it was a valid and personal choice, and also not an unethical one. I also said that this personal decision has mostly personal impact & reach.

                                    You definitely seem like you need to do emotional work & pronounced therapy if you spend multiple days in a row trying desperately to get strangers online into some semantic "gotcha" over your opinions on eating meat lol.

                                    It's not multiple people misinterpreting me, in fact in going over this exchange, you were the only one to misinterpret it. The other person disengaged and left it alone.

                                    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                      ·
                                      3 years ago

                                      No, human-animal ethics doesn’t require everyone to refrain from eating animals

                                      I'm not debating about whether it's required. I'm saying *if * it was required as a moral principle, *then * it would not follow that animals would be expected to follow it.

                                      You definitely seem like you need to do emotional work & pronounced therapy if you spend multiple days in a row trying desperately to get strangers online into some semantic “gotcha” over your opinions on eating meat lol.

                                      I haven't made my opinions on eating meat enter into this at all. I had turkey nachos for dinner, but I certainly do need to do a lot of emotional work which I take proactive and continued effort in. If you can't say the same for yourself, seriously consider therapy.

                                      • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                        ·
                                        3 years ago

                                        I am saying it's not required as a moral principle, that's not really me debating. And then I am saying it does not follow that animals have to adhere.

                                        Trying to smugly pathologize strangers online after you troll them for 2 days is definitely not the good faith or sincere outreach you appear to be making it out to be. But I think you knew that

                                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                          ·
                                          3 years ago

                                          Trying to smugly pathologize strangers online after you troll them for 2 days is definitely not the good faith or sincere outreach you appear to be making it out to be. But I think you knew that

                                          There's no trolling involved at all. You've *also * been posting over 2 days and with more volume (indicated by the comments up thread) with the indication you're unable to stop. I have no idea what you're pathology is, but I'm confident and with full sincerity you should consider therapy.

                                          • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                            ·
                                            3 years ago

                                            I've simply been restating my position, you're the one who persists in confusion.

                                            You should consider why you keep wanting to reiterate how confused you are about these things. You seem to want to drag the exchange down to the level you feel most comfortable, that is, petty quibbling & personality foibles.

                                            Not sure why you're projecting your own personal shortcomings & need for emotional support & therapy onto others. I do not judge you negatively for needing this attention, and wish you the best in getting to that better place

                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                              ·
                                              3 years ago

                                              You should consider why you keep wanting to reiterate how confused you are about these things.

                                              No, I can break down and summarize lucidly any single point you're trying to make, and I can do that in a format where you either agree with my summaries or clarify the misinterpretation. Through conflating distinct topics and failing to settle on specific meanings when pressed you've presented a view that is confused. You can take your argument to a rhetoric professor or in one specializing in moral and ethical philosophy, they too would be happy to tell you why you're wrong.

                                              Not sure why you’re projecting your own personal shortcomings & need for emotional support & therapy onto others.

                                              Oh, I'm not projecting, you have demonstrably maladaptive practices. But you can lead a horse to water, and yada yada

                                              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                ·
                                                3 years ago

                                                You've not summarized or broken down any point, and there hasn't been any "format" on which we are discussing this for you to be able to show off this "skill" or whatever you're jacking yourself off here about. You've consistently been unable to actually pin point why you're here or what exactly your angle is, and yet you continue to drag the exchange down to this snide personal level.

                                                You are neither a moral nor a legal philosopher, so I am not sure why you think you can speak as one or for one.

                                                You've also been pretending to be both a professor and a clinician here, two things you don't appear to be qualified for as far as I can tell.

                                                You've admitted to needing therapy & seeking out such resources yourself, so you definitely are projecting here on those grounds alone lol, but I am glad you've led yourself to that water & are drinking from the limpid pool of so much mental stability.

                                                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                  ·
                                                  3 years ago

                                                  Hey, if you're actually a well-adjusted, happy and healthy individual however evident my surprise, that's great. Really.

                                                  If there's possibly another reason underlying the need to keep coming back to the same topic repeatedly without being able to stop, you might discover it later.

                                                  drinking from the limpid pool of so much mental stability.

                                                  😂

                                                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                          ·
                                                          3 years ago

                                                          Oh I've always known this. But is it impossible for you to stop? You also have a pathological need to have the last word?

                                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                              ·
                                                              3 years ago

                                                              You don't have a pathological need to have the last word?

                                                              So eventually we'll hit a point where I will be the last one to reply, I wonder when that will be 😂

                                                                    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                      ·
                                                                      3 years ago

                                                                      You seemingly can't stop replying, what is your reason for replying other than a need to have the last word?

                                                                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                          ·
                                                                          3 years ago

                                                                          People, when they do things, have motivations, goals, drives or likes or dislikes or preferences that propel their behaviour.

                                                                          Rather than doing a crossword, or watching television, you're on Chapo on a long thread nobody is going to read but you (I'm also reading it, obviously).

                                                                          I've outlined my motivation here, by an obsessive dint I typically endeavor to say the last thing. What's motivating your desire to reply?

                                                                          • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                            ·
                                                                            3 years ago

                                                                            That's your motivation, I'm just responding to notifications lol

                                                                            Again, you don't have to project your own personality foibles onto others. This isn't a pissing contest

                                                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                              ·
                                                                              3 years ago

                                                                              You can actually clear the notification by clicking it. Which is a lot less work than going into the text and thinking of what the text says and your own response to what the text says.

                                                                              Especially because since as I've already said, I'm motivated by the obsessive's need to give summation. If you stopped replying, I would have had the last word, and not keep replying. This would result in no more notifications. Instead, you're choosing to continue the conversation, and generate more notifications. Something keeps bringing you back. What is it?

                                                                                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                  ·
                                                                                  3 years ago

                                                                                  So it's not any work to respond and you don't actually care about ending the notifications, but you can't announce what reason you have for replying, feigning ignorance. If you can't think of any answer to the question "why do you keep replying," I'd probably swing back around to guessing it actually was to have the last word.

                                                                                    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                      ·
                                                                                      3 years ago

                                                                                      Yeah, and I just showed you how to end the notifications. Do you mean to say you keep replying because you're so conditioned by the bell and purple icon that you can't help yourself from replying?

                                                                                      • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                        ·
                                                                                        3 years ago

                                                                                        I don't care about your tips and pointers though, and I will respond to notifications when they are addressing me

                                                                                        weird how you think you can go online and tell other people what to do lol

                                                                                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                          ·
                                                                                          3 years ago

                                                                                          So it actually is the case that you are so conditioned by a bell and purple icon that you are compelled to reply, the purple icon and bell directing your behaviour? And you can't stop as long as you see the purple icon?

                                                                                          • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                            ·
                                                                                            3 years ago

                                                                                            No, you're addressing me directly. I respond when people ask me questions

                                                                                            Are you really going to be this brainless of a troll?

                                                                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                              ·
                                                                                              3 years ago

                                                                                              So even if you had no interest in a conversation, you would reply to every question asked of you by anyone, ever?

                                                                                              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                                ·
                                                                                                3 years ago

                                                                                                I'm definitely not going to try feebly to diagnose strangers on ChaCha lol. I know you're fascinated with me, but the feeling isn't mutual I can assure you

                                                                                                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                  ·
                                                                                                  3 years ago

                                                                                                  So you will reply to any question directed at you even if you're not interested in having a conversation? What's the fondest memory you have of your mother?

                                                                                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                              ·
                                                                                                              3 years ago

                                                                                                              It's almost astonishing, despite the fact that you stated you felt a need to reply to any question directed at you, you're actually uninterested in answering the questions (if you lean into "urrrr these are my real anzwers" lol okay buddy sure).

                                                                                                              So it's also not the exchange of information from a question and answer that's prompting your continued engagement. At this point, I'm trying to imagine your motivation for replying if it isn't to have the last word.

                                                                                                              You're so conditioned by a question mark in your direction that you feel compelled to reply, without actually answering the question, but you have to make it known you've seen the question?

                                                                                                              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                                                ·
                                                                                                                3 years ago

                                                                                                                I responded to the questions lol... but I am not going to reveal all this personal information to you just because you feel the need to act infantile & obsessive online. Again, you are the one who is dragging this exchange into the petty & the personal.

                                                                                                                It definitely is the notifications that prompt me. You're just acting silly here

                                                                                                                I respond to notifications... sorry you're unable to allow others what you so desperately need for yourself

                                                                                                                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                                  ·
                                                                                                                  3 years ago

                                                                                                                  It definitely is the notifications that prompt me. You’re just acting silly here

                                                                                                                  Right, but you could end them. After you've clicked the bell notifying you of the reply and read this, congratulations, stop here, no more notifications.

                                                                                                                  [...]

                                                                                                                  Still here, huh? So you have a (apparently) non-pathological need to reply to everything directed at you, despite not wanting to engage. I obviously remain intent on closing the conversation.

                                                                                                                  In lieu of wasting airspace between your (completely normal) compulsion to reply to everything with anything even if you don't enjoy it, and my insistence on attempting to have the last say, this will serve as a study group for the first volume of Marx's Capital, for just the two of us. I'll present you with a bit of Marx from next on out, and you give your interpretation. Or if you don't want to interpret Marx, your opposition. If it's just the need to reply you have to fulfill, you'll be able to do that too. I look forward to our continued correspondence.

                                                                                                                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                                                    ·
                                                                                                                    3 years ago

                                                                                                                    You're the one still sending me notifications. Not really all that big of a deal for me to respond when messages are sent me way

                                                                                                                    You've already mentioned that you have a pathological compulsion, so that's your kink.

                                                                                                                    If your messages are cogent & not petty or quibbling then I will respond in kind.

                                                                                                                    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                                      ·
                                                                                                                      3 years ago

                                                                                                                      "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity."

                                                                                                                      • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                                                        ·
                                                                                                                        3 years ago

                                                                                                                        Yes, the commodity contains within it certain quantities of crystallized labor time & therefore alienated human potential & human striving. The material relations between people become social relations between things

                                                                                                                        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                                          ·
                                                                                                                          3 years ago

                                                                                                                          Honestly this is going to be a blast, I haven't read Capital in... 11 years now, jeez, and just copying and pasting it here is going to give cause to reread it. Hope you like linen.

                                                                                                                          "A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production."

                                                                                                                          • volkvulture [none/use name]
                                                                                                                            ·
                                                                                                                            3 years ago

                                                                                                                            Yes, "socially necessary labor" doesn't distinguish in the particulars between human needs and human wants... they're all wants and these wants are almost never satiated. Thus the compulsion of capitalist production to socially reproduce that mode every day & every pay period & every generation

                                                                                                                            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                                                                                                                              ·
                                                                                                                              3 years ago

                                                                                                                              "Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention."