PETA desperate attempt at making you vegan - General

[QUOTE=Daemon;44791475]Without going too deep into this, I'm an anti natalist which means i value as such that coming into existence is a harm of sorts and it would be better if as a result of there being [b]no new people[/b], humanity became extinct (even animals). Whatever small progresses we make may be deemed better but considering our prosperity arises billions more harm and deaths of all sentience and is an ongoing dilemma as a consequence, maybe it isn't such a better thing after all.[/QUOTE] so why do you allow yourself to continue to exist if you believe humanity is a detriment to the planet? I don't understand your view point at all. Even without humans, the planet inevitably kills life off and starts again from a different point. There's been so many life explosions followed by mass extinctions in our history that, as far as I can tell by your logic, it would be best to just remove all life of a non plant based matter entirely as there's just too much suffering in any other context of life

[QUOTE=Daemon;44791475]Without going too deep into this, I'm an anti natalist which means i value as such that coming into existence is a harm of sorts and it would be better if as a result of there being [b]no new people[/b], humanity became extinct (even animals). Whatever small progresses we make may be deemed better but considering our prosperity arises billions more harm and deaths of all sentience and is an ongoing dilemma as a consequence, maybe it isn't such a better thing after all.[/QUOTE] [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement#Primary_assumptions[/url] hmmm

[img]http://i.imgur.com/0H7ueCo.jpg[/img] Militant vegans are the worst. They just don't know where to stop in order to get attention.

Honestly PETA are dumb as fuck but I feel for animals more than I do humans. In fact I really want to eat a human one day, maybe I should join a cannibalistic society.

[QUOTE=omarfr;44791796]Honestly PETA are dumb as fuck but I feel for animals more than I do humans. In fact I really want to eat a human one day, maybe I should join a cannibalistic society.[/QUOTE] uhm uh uh uhm are you actually serious?

Sometimes I'm not really sure.

[QUOTE=Daemon;44791475]Without going too deep into this, I'm an anti natalist which means i value as such that coming into existence is a harm of sorts and it would be better if as a result of there being [b]no new people[/b], humanity became extinct (even animals). Whatever small progresses we make may be deemed better but considering our prosperity arises billions more harm and deaths of all sentience and is an ongoing dilemma as a consequence, maybe it isn't such a better thing after all.[/QUOTE] Well it's a bit hypocritical of you to be alive while we all have this moral duty to stop existing then isn't it? Or are you exempt from this fate because of your apparent sense of moral superiority? The need of a shepherd to lead the cultic flock to what he deems right? Do you suggest we drink the punch now while you preach or should you lead by example and drink as we do?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44791569]so why do you allow yourself to continue to exist if you believe humanity is a detriment to the planet?[/QUOTE] Life may be adequately bad that it is better off not to come into existance but not so bad that it is better to continue to exist. We have interests and impulses and it would need to be something severe to defeat that. Thus if i'm compulsed by these factors then in contrast death can be thought of as harm too. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44791569]I don't understand your view point at all. Even without humans, the planet inevitably kills life off and starts again from a different point. [/QUOTE] What good is it to perpetuate that then. Is one extra victim equal to two more? [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44791569]There's been so many life explosions followed by mass extinctions in our history that, as far as I can tell by your logic, it would be best to just remove all life of a non plant based matter entirely as there's just too much suffering in any other context of life[/QUOTE] The easiest solution is to quit imposing it, quit creating new victims. thats what it means it just doesn't mean you know, lets ride this bitch into the ground whilst we are here. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;44792021]Well it's a bit hypocritical of you to be alive while we all have this moral duty to stop existing then isn't it? .[/QUOTE] I'm not telling you not to exist. Yes, i'm asking you that my life is so terrible i've been raped, shot and have one leg and i have a moral duty to tell fuck tards like you that someone in the future who's in a similar situation might not want to be here and might actually go the whole way and kill himself.

[QUOTE=Daemon;44792041]Life may be adequately bad that it is better off not to come into existance but not so bad that it is better to continue to exist. We have interests and impulses and it would need to be something severe to defeat that. Thus if i'm compulsed by these factors then in contrast death can be thought of as harm too. What good is it to perpetuate that then. Is one extra victim equal to two more? The easiest solution is to quit imposing it, quit creating new victims. thats what it means it just doesn't mean you know, lets ride this bitch into the ground whilst we are here.[/QUOTE] take a look at ownereds link up there just to get a quick understanding of why you're so wrong. if you don't want to, here's a breakdown from me. 1) your view relies on the assumption that there is a natural balance to the earth, that we're some how an unbalancing force 2) it relies on humanities death being the form of "re balance" 3) it makes the assumption that life without humans is somehow inherently not full of suffering anyways. 4) it makes the assumption that suffering is more prevalent than non suffering and that non existence is better than a life of suffering 5) it makes the assumption that humanity has to leave the world worse off. Number 1 is wrong because there is no such thing as balance in nature. number 2 is wrong or at least potentially wrong because we can't know the future, and we can't know that we might save the planet from destruction by a meteor. Number 3 is wrong because life is just by definition suffering, we have no part in that. number 4 is really not something that can be discussed in any objective terms but I would say, so fucking what if life is suffering. Number 5 is debatable. Who knows if we are the salvation of the planet in the long run? Who knows that the planet itself might have another massive cataclysm and lower all life on the planet back down to the bacteria level? I just can't think you, or anyone who takes this view seriously has really, really thought about it. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Daemon;44792041] I'm not telling you not to exist. Yes, i'm asking you that my life is so terrible i've been raped, shot and have one leg and i have a moral duty to tell fuck tards like you that someone in a similar situation might not want to be here and might even go the whole way and kill himself this time.[/QUOTE] So don't advocate for the death of all humanity by telling everyone to stop having kids forever. No ones forcing you to do anything, but you're advocating for all of us to die like we're the most evil thing this planet has ever seen. We're not.

[QUOTE=draugur;44792021]Well it's a bit hypocritical of you to be alive while we all have this moral duty to stop existing then isn't it? Or are you exempt from this fate because of your apparent sense of moral superiority? The need of a shepherd to lead the cultic flock to what he deems right? Do you suggest we drink the punch now while you preach or should you lead by example and drink as we do?[/QUOTE] In my opinion, we shouldn't "stop existing". Yet, we are with way too many people in this small world. A little while ago I heard something like the world was made for a maximum of 500.000.000 people. We've by far surpassed that number. Killing 6.500.000.000 people would not be a good idea, but setting a birth limit for only 1 child per married pair could help getting our numbers down.

[QUOTE=luca00555;44792194]In my opinion, we shouldn't "stop existing". Yet, we are with way too many people in this small world. A little while ago I heard something like the world was made for a maximum of 500.000.000 people. We've by far surpassed that number. Killing 6.500.000.000 people would not be a good idea, but setting a birth limit for only 1 child per married pair could help getting our numbers down.[/QUOTE] Sorry to break it to you, but overpopulation is a complete load of shit. Whoever told you that is a moron. In 1679, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek estimated that the maximum number of people Earth can support is 13.4 billion people. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek[/url]) So, whoever told you that 500 million was the max, is a moron, because this number raised to upwards of 44 billion in the 90's. This is even further supported as the world's population is estimated to be around 7 billion currently. If the max the earth was supposed to support was 500 million, we would never have reached 7 billion, because the life capacity of the environment would have killed a very large number of us via starvation as food supplies dwindled to nothing. This would have lead to a massive ecological disaster as humans being the top of the food chain hunted and harvested all the food possible until everything was extinct or we died. This clearly did not happen and thus the max population of humans the Earth can support is not 500 million. The population limit of something is the largest sustainable population an environment can support, and going above that number by even double leads to a very quick and untimely death for a majority of a species. Humans have gone over your figure 13 times by now, which is damn impressive, considering the amount of energy the earth is supposed to be able to provide to us is only suitable for 500 million. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Daemon;44792041] I'm not telling you not to exist. Yes, i'm asking you that my life is so terrible i've been raped, shot and have one leg and i have a moral duty to tell fuck tards like you that someone in the future who's in a similar situation might not want to be here and might actually go the whole way and kill himself.[/QUOTE] What does this even mean? You're an advocate for suicide rights? I never said people shouldn't be able to kill themselves, in fact I've been dumbed and flamed into obscurity of a few occasions for arguing that we have the right to end our lives. So, what the fuck are you talking about? You're changing the subject here I think, you blatantly said that humans should stop existing, and when I call you out on it you don't even answer with anything substantial. Instead you say: [quote]I'm not telling you not to exist.[/quote] Well yes you did, [QUOTE=Daemon;44791475]coming into existence is a harm of sorts and it would be better if as a result of there being [b]no new people[/b], humanity became extinct (even animals).[/QUOTE] It would be better if humanity became extinct. Sounds kinda like you're saying don't exist here, but you know, we were all born, and thus, we are all a negative, thus, by your philosophy, we should stop existing because we are negatives. [quote] my life is so terrible i've been raped, shot and have one leg and i have a moral duty[/quote] Thanks for the sob story, it doesn't help your point and I don't care. I've witnessed rape, nearly froze to death, had an abusive father when I was young, been stabbed a good few times and have been threatened on multiple occasions with the ending of my life. Does any of that pertain to the debate at hand? No. So why did you feel the need to bring up your own life problems? Maybe you're trying to impose a sense of superiority to me, to say that your life is somehow worth more than mine because of your hardships? But by your own philosophy: (1) The presence of pain is bad. (2) The presence of pleasure is good. (3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. (4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism[/url]) Therefore, by [i]your own philosophy[/i] you are wrong. "If someone exists, there is the presence of pain and the presence of pleasure. If no one exists, nothing bad happens and pain is avoided." -wikipedia By not existing, you fulfill the goal of your philosophy, and by that you have once again told me to stop existing. Settled. [quote]I'm not telling you not to exist.[/quote] Turns out you once again have done just that. [quote] i have a moral duty to tell fuck tards like you[/quote] This is exactly how you make people want to actually see your side of a debate. Yes. Here's a little tip for you, by calling me a fuck tard you could have potentially caused me to experience pain, which by your philosophy is the worst thing you can do, so please, watch what you say to people, wouldn't want you being a hypocrite now would we? [quote] someone in the future who's in a similar situation might not want to be here and might actually go the whole way and kill himself.[/quote] Again, there is nothing wrong with suicide if the person committing the act is not in that state due to a treatable mental illness.

[QUOTE=draugur;44792321]What does this even mean? You're an advocate for suicide rights? I never said people shouldn't be able to kill themselves, in fact I've been dumbed and flamed into obscurity of a few occasions for arguing that we have the right to end our lives. So, what the fuck are you talking about? You're changing the subject here I think, you blatantly said that humans should stop existing, and when I call you out on it you don't even answer with anything substantial. Instead you say:.[/QUOTE] I didn't convey my point across well, woe me. I meant that we shouldn't be taking the risk that someone may not want to be put through similar hardship that others might have endured and for that reason we shouldn't start new lives. The reason why i said what i did was because life without being able to walk may not make life bad and not worth continuing but ideally it is better to not bring into existence somebody who can't walk. We make stronger justifications for not ending a life than for not starting one. [QUOTE=draugur;44792321] It would be better if humanity became extinct. Sounds kinda like you're saying don't exist here, but you know, we were all born, and thus, we are all a negative, thus, by your philosophy, we should stop existing because we are negatives..[/QUOTE] It is wrong to cut lives short if people are willing to carry on with their lives. The fact is people do cut their lives short because of harm and if people desisted from creating further people, it ensures that future people's lives are not cut short because there wouldn't be any lives that could.

But how am I supposed to get my mad gains at the gym?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44794513]But how am I supposed to get my mad gains at the gym?[/QUOTE] what are supplements

This made me hungry.

[QUOTE=DarkeeScorp;44794528]what are supplements[/QUOTE] Yeah taking supplements by themselves without a proper diet is a fantastic idea! I'm sure you must be a nutritionist or a pro body builder or something, you're obviously very educated on the subject.

[QUOTE=Daemon;44794118]I didn't convey my point across well, woe me. I meant that we shouldn't be taking the risk that someone may not want to be put through similar hardship that others might have endured and for that reason we shouldn't start new lives. The reason why i said what i did was because life without being able to walk may not make life bad and not worth continuing but ideally it is better to not bring into existence somebody who can't walk. We make stronger justifications for not ending a life than for not starting one. It is wrong to cut lives short if people are willing to carry on with their lives. The fact is people do cut their lives short because of harm and if people desisted from creating further people, it ensures that future people's lives are not cut short because there wouldn't be any lives that could.[/QUOTE] You have digressed from the initial topic of conversation. In systems, groups arise which are good at arising, like humans. "Life" is inevitable, for however arbitrarily high you set the definition of it, in terms of complexity. You can never, not have life, if there was still matter in the universe, whatever matter that remains will simply be considered a lower life form.

[QUOTE=Daemon;44792041] I'm not telling you not to exist.[/QUOTE] but you want future generations to not exist

[QUOTE=Daemon;44794118]I didn't convey my point across well, woe me. I meant that we shouldn't be taking the risk that someone may not want to be put through similar hardship that others might have endured and for that reason we shouldn't start new lives. The reason why i said what i did was because life without being able to walk may not make life bad and not worth continuing but ideally it is better to not bring into existence somebody who can't walk. We make stronger justifications for not ending a life than for not starting one. It is wrong to cut lives short if people are willing to carry on with their lives. The fact is people do cut their lives short because of harm and if people desisted from creating further people, it ensures that future people's lives are not cut short because there wouldn't be any lives that could.[/QUOTE] so for all the good in anyones life, you'd think that they'd all be better off just never having lived? Guess what. You have to kill all life on earth, ALL life, in order to fulfill your goal of zero sum suffering.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44795616]so for all the good in anyones life, you'd think that they'd all be better off just never having lived? Guess what. You have to kill all life on earth, ALL life, in order to fulfill your goal of zero sum suffering.[/QUOTE] Wellp, looks like he better start the genocide machine asap then, that's a lot of things to murder in cold blood.

[QUOTE=draugur;44795636]Wellp, looks like he better start the genocide machine asap then, that's a lot of things to murder in cold blood.[/QUOTE] Here's hoping he starts with himself.

Does anyone else find it hard to not pronounce it like, "Pet Uh?"

[QUOTE=Flameon;44775609]Grain and corn that goes to animals could, instead of becoming processed animal feed, go to people.[/QUOTE] Hah! Corn! We can't even digest corn properly. [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman;44775693]Notice how they are all rather skinny? Although I know this isn't always the case, there's an MMA fighter who's a vegan.[/QUOTE] And I bet that person either; eats a bunch of supplements or eats like starved horse all the time.

[QUOTE=mochisushi;44794826]You have digressed from the initial topic of conversation. In systems, groups arise which are good at arising, like humans. "Life" is inevitable, for however arbitrarily high you set the definition of it, in terms of complexity. You can never, not have life, if there was still matter in the universe, whatever matter that remains will simply be considered a lower life form.[/QUOTE] There is no viable way to enforce my view without infringing on the personal right of a human being which I will never agree to. I don't obsess over it to an unhealthy degree for this reason which might have led to some ignorance. If every person was infected with some debilitating genetic disorder and reproduced, it would not change the situation. In contrast, maybe any aggressive persuasion is nonconstructive over this gleaming fact. Having taken in with what you said, i make the mistake of focusing too much on individual case and not life, the species and it's intrinsic purpose to sustain itself, despite it's unpleasant nature. However, anti natalism has it's good arguments for not needing to create life. I think it is wrong to assume that the people who exist and the future lives that might follow are fine with life, for as long as they are existing and anyone who claims otherwise should be setting example, despite the many people who already do. I'm sorry to anyone if anything came across offenssive or obnoxious in my arguments. I suppose an important part of our existence whilst being here is to keep figuring out how to do something to satisfy and comfort the inflicted no matter how backward our situation is.

Well, I'm sold.

[QUOTE=Daemon;44798292]There is no viable way to enforce my view without infringing on the personal right of a human being which I will never agree to. I don't obsess over it to an unhealthy degree for this reason which might have led to some ignorance. If every person was infected with some debilitating genetic disorder and reproduced, it would not change the situation. In contrast, maybe any aggressive persuasion is nonconstructive over this gleaming fact. Having taken in with what you said, i make the mistake of focusing too much on individual case and not life, the species and it's intrinsic purpose to sustain itself, despite it's unpleasant nature. However, anti natalism has it's good arguments for not needing to create life. I think it is wrong to assume that the people who exist and the future lives that might follow are fine with life, for as long as they are existing and anyone who claims otherwise should be setting example, despite the many people who already do. I'm sorry to anyone if anything came across offenssive or obnoxious in my arguments. I suppose an important part of our existence whilst being here is to keep figuring out how to do something to satisfy and comfort the inflicted no matter how backward our situation is.[/QUOTE] If it's better, under your thinking, to have not lived, and not suffer, then wouldn't it be better for you not to have started an argument, and not go through all this posting? You apply this abstract philosophy to a specific area of discourse, and yet are totally reluctant to apply it to anything else.

[QUOTE=mochisushi;44798965]If it's better, under your thinking, to have not lived, and not suffer, then wouldn't it be better for you not to have started an argument, and not go through all this posting? You apply this abstract philosophy to a specific area of discourse, and yet are totally reluctant to apply it to anything else.[/QUOTE] Honestly it is a pretty bad philosophy to follow. Not to be a huge dick or anything Daemon, but your philosophy is pretty much one giant load of depressing crap. Honestly mate, you should see a psychologist, talk to them about your views and seek the help you deserve. You're obviously a competent person who's mentally fucked up and bought into one of many philosophical shit takes that were created by mentally ill people such as Arthur Schopenhauer(the founder of antinatalism as a philosophy). You are willing to believe in something because you your self are hurt in some way and it's convenient to have such a philosophy to make your pain make sense isn't it? You've been hurt mate, but that doesn't mean you gotta look at it in this black and white way. Life isn't black, white or grey. It's a giant gradient of a million colours, and you've simply been tricked into a learned colour blindness by the teachings of an old self absorbed dick of a philosopher. The potential for good in a future life is nothing to say isn't worth the chance, in fact it is one of few gambles we as a species should always make when the choice comes. Without the creation of new, what innovation would lay the bricks of betterment over the foundation the old have poured? It is this mindset that gave us the quality of life we take for granted today. Instead we should be seeking a better future for our children, and our children's children, because when we're gone the only thing they'll have to remember us by is the world we leave them, so why do we want to leave them nothing? The cold war and baby boomer generations fucked shit up, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to, we don't live in their time anymore, they progressed enough to give us the chance to do what they couldn't.

This is the first Youtube video I've seen that has a donate option on the description.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;44791733][img]http://i.imgur.com/0H7ueCo.jpg[/img] Militant vegans are the worst. They just don't know where to stop in order to get attention.[/QUOTE] Hopefully she gets rabies or some shit.