Únete a Last.fm o inicia sesión para dejar una nota.
-
-
Respuestas
-
Respuestas
-
-
-
-
Lexthargie
have you ever listened to music that sounds vegan? :D man can you hear the carrot scratching?
Acciones
Respuestas
-
Respuestas
-
-
-
-
LCDnewOrder
Never thought I'd see Earth Crisis and The Smiths in the same tag, but there you go :/
Acciones
-
Esta nota no está disponible.
-
-
EsteyOrganCo
Whether or not you are a vegan, vegetarian or meat-eater, Australia has a gut-churning record when it comes to its treatment of animals. Please, give this track a go. Share it with others. Discuss. Debate. Turn this awful paradigm of ethics around. https://soundcloud.com/esteyorganco/billion-bludgeoned-lives
Acciones
-
-
Esta nota no está disponible.
-
TheBrightField
What? If you're motto is not doing it half-assed, then why are you vegetarian, not vegan? Dairy & eggs are as unethical as meat. Apparently you do care about ethics, else why bring them up? Quinoa is not a necessity in a vegan diet (nor is soy). That's probably why many (probably most) vegans never eat it. The majority of vegans I know (and I know quite a few) do not in any case. That being said. Human rights violations take place in relation to the production many crops, especially those used to feed cattle. No need to single out quinoa.
Acciones
-
TrailoftheFifty
vegans are definitely not pussies. I'm a vegetarian for health not ehtical reasons and it's already hard enough. being a vegan takes immense discipline. with that said, vegans also need to tell you how disciplined they are and how shitty you are for being a meat eater. also, they don't seem to care the human rights violations befalling the farmers who consistently harvest their precious quinoa, but care if a brain dead chicken has a feather out of place. if you're gonna do the whole "ethical consumerism " thing, then don't do it half-assed, is my motto.
Acciones
-
k8m7h64p
And I would like to take the opportunity to write something more. Calling vegans pussies because they don't eat meat. If you think you can call yourself not-pussy because you've just eaten that bought chicken, you're fundamentally wrong. Try to kill an animal yourself, with your bare hands... and not a chicken, everyone can do that, try a tiger or a bear for a change.
Acciones
-
k8m7h64p
5k17, exploiting and killing plants for food is indeed ethically better than doing that with animals. As for today, we know (think) that animals suffer more (are more conscious) than plants do. We also know (are sure) that people are in fact animals, so I guess that's telling us something. And even if plants feel the same way as animals do, that doesn't justify killing animals for pleasure. It's a lost argument. If plants feel the same way as animals do, we'll have to think of a way to find an alternative, otherwise (assuming we understand suffering of other beings, including our human neighbours) we'll be ... (not so hard to fill the gap). Many animals (especially mammals) have basic empathy.
Acciones
-
-
Esta nota no está disponible.
-
Esta nota no está disponible.
-
-
-
-
shamgar413
I love that there is a tag for Vegans. Vegan inspired music is music that is saying something important in defense of "animals" and these type of people should so be supported. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
Acciones
-
perrinfumanchin
not all last fm tags are genres, in fact very few are, the sooner people realise this the better [1]
Acciones
-
sweatbloodtears
not all last fm tags are genres, in fact very few are, the sooner people realise this the better
Acciones
-
Hugohxc1984
@king_ston, well, that's because "vegan" is not a genre, is a tag, as in "music to skate to", "music to get laid to", "peace" or "animal rights"...
Acciones
-
-
-
-
TheBrightField
"The wrongness of it is a subjective and moral argument." It seems you've not understood a single word I said. Which is kinda sad and all because it really isn't that difficult to grasp. While morals themselves are subjective (as I've said before) logic between various different moral values people have can be hard to find (or just downright non-existant). If someone would argue that cruelty to humans is wrong, but cruelty to animals is not then they will have to point out, by means of morally relevant argument, what makes humans so unique that it'd make a difference. If they can't, then obviously their logic and ethics are flawed (inconsistent). To this day I have not heard any morally relevant criterion that separates humans (as a group) from non-human animals (as a group).
Acciones
-
-
-
TheBrightField
"and ultimately PSEUDO-scientific arguments to justify what they already believed" - right, you said it yourself. That's exactly why it's logically inconsistent. So kind of weird why you would be laughing. Furthermore, now you are trying to separate social factors (instead of emotion) from logic - again, this doesn't do justice to the facts of life. While it is true that social factors can actually successfully thwart logic (think: argumentum ad populum), there are many situations in which logic is the beginning of (social) change. I'll say it again, you cannot artificially separated the two as there are constant interactions. Then again, looking at your avatar you probably can, who knows. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Acciones
-
-
TheBrightField
Lastly, what you call irrelevant, is extremely relevant for others (in this case, animals, people who care about animals). Sad thing is you could say the exact same thing about, say, any mass-shooting with human victims. After all, according to the ethic of the murderers it was justified. And why keep on complaining about 'late capitalist society' if it 'only exists within our own system of morality'? I mean what's the point. Other than that, fact of the matter is. People can change. Radically. Cattle rancher gone vegan. That type of stuff. You can hardly argue this guy was already 'sympathetic' to the fate of animals while he still exploited and abused them to better himself. At the very most it was there, but buried deep within. And that's exactly where ethics and the discussion of moral beliefs come in. That's the point. To dig things up and have them see the light of day.
Acciones
-
TheBrightField
My whole point is to discuss (and I wasn't even the one that started the whole thing, that was the guy 'disagreeing' - see, this hints at REASON not emotion- with the vegan position'), among other things, the rational flaws made by people trying to defend, say, the killing of non-human animals, but not humans. That is the moral -logical- inconsistency I am refering to. Whether or not things 'matter to you' does not amount to a proper ethic by itself. It's like saying you have an opinion but no arguments to back it up. In any discussion it makes sense to explain WHY it does or does not matter to you. If ethics would've never been discussed and people would not judge another in any way or meaning we would still have widespread slavery, child labour and so forth. So yes, there is every reason to discuss ethics. Sure, it might not always be in the personal interest of some cartoonish folk at Last.fm but that's entirely besides the point.
Acciones
-
TheBrightField
Nothing much is 'entirely emotional' ('cept perhaps some teenage rantings and ramblings on this site, see below), most of our actions have some form of reason behind them. Only on occasion do we act on impulse (be it instinct (innate) / intuition (from experience)). As for ethics, you will see many logical consistencies between the various moral beliefs that people have, but also inconsistencies. A racist ethic for example, is logically inconsistent. If it was just emotion then why do you think people are constantly trying to rationalize their choices and make up arguments to try and defend, in this case, why they eat animals?
Acciones
-
TheBrightField
@noo_dog: while morals are subjective, it makes perfect sense that you'd ask that there is logic to someone's ethics. Else why even take someone serious? Logic should have everything to do with it - it is the ONLY way to properly discuss ethics, which, ultimately is in just about anyone's interest. Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever and unfortunately you fail to explain why. How is having animals killed and abused 'just as stupid' as not wanting to doing so? Again, no logic. Furthermore, the only real 'aggression' I see on this page (and many others) is coming from non-vegans, and that while this seems quite a harmless tag to me. I also don't tag anything as vegan, but I can see why other people would. Like I said, many people listen to music that is significant to them in some way. As for moral superiority, I am willing to bet that you yourself also feel morally superior to certain other people, be they people you see as selfish, thieves or worse (murderers, rapists, etc.).
Acciones
-
noo_dog
@Alturism: "Talking about rational thought though, I have yet to find the first person having any sensible rational argument against veganism. Sure you'll have your flawed logic in 'vehemently disagreeing' with acts of compassion but that doesn't really cut it now does it?" I don't 'vehemently disagree' with acts of compassion, nor with anyone's personal choice to be vegan. When I said the 'vegan/straight edge viewpoint', I meant people that make music/art actively promoting their life choice and agressively denouncing others'. What I disagree with is moral superiority, moral absolutism, and moralism in general. Morals are based on our own sense of empathy, our life experiences and our cultural background (amongst other things). They're are subjective, personal choices which have NOTHING to do with logic. Vegans who can't understand why (or can't tolerate) people who eat meat are just as stupid and irrational as omnivores, carnivores (or cannibals :D) who don't understand vegans.
Acciones