You are correct. Cultures which still hunt are just "ooga booga me smash rock." They are incapable of developing a morality or philosophy which incorporates their relationship to prey.
They are incapable of developing a morality or philosophy which incorporates their relationship to prey.
And one of those might be vegetarianism or veganism, out of a respect in recognising the sentience of other animals and seeking to reduce their harm, you fucking moron.
The person who thinks veganism and vegetarianism is incapable of being adapted, understood, developed or accepted by indigenous cultures because they're all exclusively so tied up with animal consumption that it would be apparently impossible to suggest it, and that suggesting otherwise is somehow a rejection of darwinism.
So you admit you’re a dipshit invoking indigenous culture as a shitty broad shield so as to not be made to personally think about your societies relation to modern farming practices
I have literally said nothing about this. I have said that humans have relationships to animal, which include hunter/prey relations.
because you prioritise not feeling any personal guilt.
I try to avoid animal products I don't hunt or fish myself. The most I spend on animal products is eggs from my neighbor. I grow a decent portion of my own food. I'm not particularly guilty of my consumer choices. This all sounds like projection.
Hence invoking Darwinism, as if modern industrial society is comparable to some “state of nature” which you are clearly using indigenous culture as a stand-in for.
Humans are not divorced from their environment or Darwinistic relations to other animals, even in industrial societies. This is not exclusive to indigenous societies.
I have literally said nothing about this. I have said that humans have relationships to animal, which include hunter/prey relations.
Yes, you are invoking indigenous cultures as a stand-in for state of nature, to imply ethical or moral consideration of the well-being of animals is somehow de facto off the table, which is obviously absurd.
I try to avoid animal products I don’t hunt or fish myself. The most I spend on animal products is eggs from my neighbour. I grow a decent portion of my own food. I’m not particularly guilty of my consumer choices. This all sounds like projection.
Cool, so why are you so absurdly defensive that you keep insisting we can only talk about indigenous cultures when talking about vegetarianism or veganism. That's a bad faith argument that does not at all relate to what vegans or vegetarians argue, even if we were to accept that no indigenous culture has never developed a philosophy that might imply well-being of animals as a consideration, and that therefore invoking indigenous as if it were a homogenous, identical mass that is unthinkable to not have animal consumption.
Humans are not divorced from their environment or Darwinistic relations to other animals, even in industrial societies. This is not exclusive to indigenous societies.
Not addressing the point. Invoking broad generalities does not deal with the specifics, which is human society today does not broadly exist in some small scale state where it has no option but to eat meat out of sheer desperation. In continually invoking indigenous societies, you are reducing them to a single identical mass, and also avoiding the actual point of discussion of most vegans and vegetarians, which is industrial society that envelops most of the world. It is also fetishising indigenous cultures to present them as if they are beyond discussion or critique, as if we were to invoke certain historical cultures to defend e.g. human sacrifice.
You keep invoking Darwinism as if this puts moral or ethical considerations out of consideration and therefore ends the discussion. It is quite right to point out that therefore you are making an absurd, reductive argument. There are many things that happen or could happen that could be deemed necessary in a "state of nature" or a claim to desperation or a claim to some society that does not have affordance we have. That does not make a position flatly wrong, as is the case in any ethical or moral claim e.g. murder is generally wrong, even if I could be pushed into a situation where it might be deemed acceptable out of desperation, defence, etc.
I said that people still hunt in a cooperative way with nature, and I was met with:
Oh, so you think you're a wolf
Human society can never progress past that point and consider moral or ethical points that go beyond the level of someone bashing a rock over someone elses head to steal someone elses dead elk.
These were both incredibly racist & chauvinistic.
an Indian vegetarian says that Americans haven’t progressed to a more enlightened position towards their food
No one said this to me, but I would agree if someone did say this.
"It's racism to suggest moral and ethical considerations might change as human society changes and our understanding of the world changes with it"
You are correct. Cultures which still hunt are just "ooga booga me smash rock." They are incapable of developing a morality or philosophy which incorporates their relationship to prey.
And one of those might be vegetarianism or veganism, out of a respect in recognising the sentience of other animals and seeking to reduce their harm, you fucking moron.
What are you responding to?
The person who thinks veganism and vegetarianism is incapable of being adapted, understood, developed or accepted by indigenous cultures because they're all exclusively so tied up with animal consumption that it would be apparently impossible to suggest it, and that suggesting otherwise is somehow a rejection of darwinism.
Cool, go talk to that person.
I don't care whether your opinions on hunting or husbandry are adopted by any culture, and I have said nothing about that.
Removed by mod
I have literally said nothing about this. I have said that humans have relationships to animal, which include hunter/prey relations.
I try to avoid animal products I don't hunt or fish myself. The most I spend on animal products is eggs from my neighbor. I grow a decent portion of my own food. I'm not particularly guilty of my consumer choices. This all sounds like projection.
Humans are not divorced from their environment or Darwinistic relations to other animals, even in industrial societies. This is not exclusive to indigenous societies.
Yes, you are invoking indigenous cultures as a stand-in for state of nature, to imply ethical or moral consideration of the well-being of animals is somehow de facto off the table, which is obviously absurd.
Cool, so why are you so absurdly defensive that you keep insisting we can only talk about indigenous cultures when talking about vegetarianism or veganism. That's a bad faith argument that does not at all relate to what vegans or vegetarians argue, even if we were to accept that no indigenous culture has never developed a philosophy that might imply well-being of animals as a consideration, and that therefore invoking indigenous as if it were a homogenous, identical mass that is unthinkable to not have animal consumption.
Not addressing the point. Invoking broad generalities does not deal with the specifics, which is human society today does not broadly exist in some small scale state where it has no option but to eat meat out of sheer desperation. In continually invoking indigenous societies, you are reducing them to a single identical mass, and also avoiding the actual point of discussion of most vegans and vegetarians, which is industrial society that envelops most of the world. It is also fetishising indigenous cultures to present them as if they are beyond discussion or critique, as if we were to invoke certain historical cultures to defend e.g. human sacrifice.
You keep invoking Darwinism as if this puts moral or ethical considerations out of consideration and therefore ends the discussion. It is quite right to point out that therefore you are making an absurd, reductive argument. There are many things that happen or could happen that could be deemed necessary in a "state of nature" or a claim to desperation or a claim to some society that does not have affordance we have. That does not make a position flatly wrong, as is the case in any ethical or moral claim e.g. murder is generally wrong, even if I could be pushed into a situation where it might be deemed acceptable out of desperation, defence, etc.
deleted by creator
I said that people still hunt in a cooperative way with nature, and I was met with:
These were both incredibly racist & chauvinistic.
No one said this to me, but I would agree if someone did say this.
deleted by creator