BasementParty [none/use name]

  • 1 Post
  • 124 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • How exactly is poultry a grey area? Have you met birds before?

    I have, they are capable of feeling pain and possess reasonable intelligence. I just don’t consider them sapient in a way that matters. If you cut off a chicken’s head, it will still act like a chicken. This implies that most of what a chicken feels mentally is instinctual. If you cut off my head and I came into work the next day acting normal, it would raise serious questions about the nature of human consciousness. Poultry shouldn’t suffer unnecessarily, but I doubt it has much sapience. Thus a gray area depending on how you judge their intelligence and your own morals.

    I hear what you’re saying about oysters (even though I disagree)

    Vegans always say that but not a single person has ever responded to that point in my 6 years of making it. If you disagree, do what the vegans I’ve talked with failed to do and address it please.

    making the same case for fish/octopus

    You shouldn’t eat octopus. Everything I said about poultry applies 3 fold to fish. Less capacity to feel pain and less sapience. I don’t consider a creature that acts entirely on instinct to have any right to life.


  • None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. “Dont eat animals, don’t support the harm of animals.”

    Yes it is, why is your line animals? Why are oysters so obviously worthy of life but not complex plants and fungus? Vegans claim that just because an creatures nervous system is arranged different, it doesn’t mean that it’s not worthy of life. Why does this not extend to complex plants and fungi?




  • I agree with vegans on 90% of things but the vegan position is ultimately arbitrary on what’s allowed and disallowed.

    Vegans, generally speaking, do not eat any animals. Oysters are not vegan despite the fact that they do not have a brain and their nervous system is extremely simple, they are more or less meat plants. They do not suffer nor have anything in which suffering could be inflicted. If such a simple creature is worthy of life, then most plants we eat are also worthy of life. If not, then veganism is not a moral imperative.

    As demonstrated, the line that vegans draw around the animal kingdom is mostly arbitrary. Eating cows and other mammals is absolutely a bad thing. Poultry is a gray area. Most seafood is probably safe to eat. The fact that I’m called a blood-mouth for eating oysters makes me skeptical of whether some vegans are arguing in good faith. If someone’s righteous indignation on what shouldn’t be eaten ends at animals arbitrarily, then I think their views are based more on a social clique than science.

    I do think they are better than the average person though even if their views are inconsistent.




  • in summary if you’re upset about quest markers infantilizing your fantasy game play the next elder scrolls out of the box with them turned off.

    “If you don’t like the crutch I use to avoid putting thought in the area design, why don’t you just play without the crutch?”

    Fallout 3/Oblivion sucking without quest markers is a direct result of the designers deciding not to give a shit about world design. It has nothing to do with grass/trees. If it did, you’d expect Fallout/Oblivion dungeons to be better designed. But no, they fall into the same quest marker bullshit that the overworld does. Why spend a month creating an interesting dungeon that takes into account how players explore when you can just put a marker on the secret button and get it done in a week?

    Bethesda didn’t want to put thought into their environment so they used quest markers. The fact that their game doesn’t work without them does not mean they’re secretly good.