That is a nice way to deflect the conversation with out actually arguing anything with logic or reason. Perhaps because you know that I have spelled you out on your actions and can't admit the inconsistencies in your beliefs of how to act regarding meat consumption.

And for the record I openly admit my faults, if I didn't i would have argued with endlessness which I didn't do. I instead asked him for his opinion on how to rectify the problems of indirect violation of other organisms through destroying their habitat.

I hope you can read a bit more carefully next time pal or at least try to see what is actually being transferred because your saying I am doing things which I have not done.

im not deflecting, i know my meat consumption causes suffering.

truth is i dont care if i inflict suffering on a cow, as long as i keep that suffering to a minimum. just like i dont care about all the organisms i crush when i walk or the flies i massacre when i drive. I find the suffereing i inflict on human beings in the developing world, who fuel my western life style, to be far more troubling than my consumption of a relatively small amount of meat.

i dont eat factory farmed meat, because i thinks is aweful, but I certainly dont go about insulting people who do.

edit- fathomlessness i edited that post due to it being a bit snipey, which i didnt mean as it doesnt help anyone and is just mean spirited, but have restored it as you quoted it.

Joe Rogan good or bad? People

Not an epic debate on Vegetarianism...

Get back on Topic ...

Bruuuce

Joe is one cruel lumberjack. I see him better advertising slaughterhouses, not psychedelics.

I think that the financial crisis of 2008 has clearly shown that no society can do without ethics. Without ethics, society fails and disintegrates. As living independantly from other human beings, like a hermit, is not a realistic option for 7 billion people on one planet...i think the need for morality is not subjective at all. No more subjective than the need for food or water.

The idea that there is no such thing as right or wrong is THE major mistake of todays society. And it's self-defeating in every way: society needs morals. A thief could maybe say "i don't care". But what arguments does he have left if society decides to punish him for his actions? An appeal to the very morality he just denied the existence of?

It is easy to talk about ethics of how to treat one another as humans but going beyond that it becomes harder. That is funny you mention the necessity of ethics in modern societies and yet fail to explain why they don't employ these ethics currently in regards to their consumption of meat and destruction of the environment. You say we can't live without ethics? Well it is already happening as proof that we can live without ethics... only in regards to our use in eating meat and pillaging the environment and not in regards to how we treat our fellow men. In fact we still do treat our fellow men poorly, but enough for society to flourish to a limited degree.

I agree with you though that there is an objective need for subjective morals if we are to survive well but it will always remain subjective and no one can ever say absolutely what is truly good or bad. Because of this courtrooms are rooms made for condemning people on mere opinions.

What you said about us all being passive hermits is like what joe rogan says in his mountain sketch this year about vegans. They are so idiotic and self-contradictory that it is laughable. I think mainly because it is so ingrained in our nature to act like the rest of the animals do that to not do it seems hilarious.

I think you're making a mistake here. You say that we are currently living without ethics. I firstly don't think that this is entirely correct, in the sense that most people do have some basic understanding of right and wrong. Psychopaths who lack this understanding are still the exception...maybe not in the realm of politic's or finance, but in those fields we clearly see why ethic's is needed so much.
But secondly, the difference between ethic's and direct needs like food and water, is that ethic's tend to be about longer-term survival.

If you say that the lack of ethics is leading to polution and mass etinction then you clearly are saying that we CAN'T survive without ethic's. That ethic's IS as needed for our survival as food and water. It's just not as accute as food and water, in the sense that we don't feel the consequences immediately. But it's rather something like why gathering nuts and seeds for the winter is nessecary for some sub-species of squirrel. The squirrel doesn't die immediately when it doesn't do it. But it won't survive the cold winter if it won't.

We currently are paying the price for moral relativism. Literally. Our lack of care about issues like child-labour and slavery in dictatorial regimes (or even slavery within the west itself, in sweatshops for instance) for instance, has undermined the economy. The middle-class in many western countries is struggling, because it's hard if not impossible to compete against slave-labour. Economists who've been advocating global free-trade for decades, are now reluctantly starting to admit that outsourcing jobs to china has been bad for employment in america and europe itself.

If the need for rules is objective, then you can also objectively say that some rules are better than others. So then there is an objective standard for moral rules. So the ban on cannabis for instance, is objectively unnessecary, and therefore a bad rule. It doesn't facilitate the need for moral rules and it violates the principle of utility in that it destroys lives, incites curruption and crime, and costs lots of money. That's an objective fact. Why not just admit then, that it's an objective truth that it's morally wrong to waste money, resources and lives on something that harms society as whole?

Logic is, to a certain extent, objective. We can use logical reasoning to debate moral rules.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that we are currently living without ethics, I said that we don't "employ these ethics currently in regards to their consumption of meat and destruction of the environment. para. 1"

Seondly, I never said that "lack of ethics is leading to polution and mass extinction", that is what endlessness said and I was challenging him on whether or not that even matters because of the non-existence of objective morality.

Also, you kept using the term "food and water" but the original discussion was about MEAT and environment exploitation, this is not about vegetables and hot springs. IMO, ethics is not necessary for our survival and I believed that all along. It is however necessary for the survival of our subjective morality. If ethics was necessary for survival then it wouldn't be possible to be like EVERY single carnivore on this planet, in fact it is the lack of ethics that maintains their survival... and yet we humans hold contradictory beliefs that we should be ethical but at the same time kill animals and even keep them in captivity ready for the slaughter house. And endlessness feels we humans should be ethical but yet rape our earths habitat for our resources. If that is not contradictory, i don't know what is.

your third paragraph was informative

Unfortunately you can't say that some rules are better than others, that is a subjective choice even if it has utility in objective processes like "everyone not killing each other and getting along" lol. As for cannabis there is no clear distinction between what is better than the other. At the end of the day you have a combined list of data or arguments for both sides and it is personal choice (reason included) that dictates which one is more valid. It is not an objective truth that it's morally wrong to waste money, resources and lives on something that harms society as whole. It is a subjective truth.

If the evil aliens were on earth it would be for them the truth that it is right to waste money, resources and lives on something that harms society and it would be the false that it is right for humans to believe that. Who is right? No one, it is subjective.

Finally, cyb warned us to keep on track with JOE ROGAN which I have tried to do in my last post. If you reply I suggest you say the word joe rogan at least once in your post. OR HE MIGHT GIVE U THE BANS!!!!!!

OK this one is for you cyb:

joe rogan.

I might start a thread on it so we can continue

I don't remember to be honest, but I have a feeling Joe Rogan was one of the people who got me into psychedelics and stuff in the first place. I think he's opened a lot of people's eyes to the world of psychedelics and that's a good thing if you like psychedelics too.

I used to listen to his podcast a lot but lately he just annoys me. He has a tendency to make statements about shit he really doesn't know much about (we all do, but he has a huge audience who thinks he's way smarter than he is).

Really? I listen out for this kind of stuff always. Like whether a statement is irrational, unfounded, opinion, speculation, passive-agressive and I think Joe Rogan does a pretty good job to steer clear of that.

What he does do though is purposely NOT be politically correct and just says whatever the f*ck he wants, which is why I like him because PC prevents truth or at least clarity being transposed in a number of ways.

He knows what is bullshit and is careful not say it, lest he become like deepak chopra etc.

Instead of saying "It is true" he knows to say "It might be true"

However, that wasn't the case in the beginning, just listen to the ramble on DMT lol

Open question to those criticizing rogan.. Imagine if someone recorded you and your friends getting stoned and just talking for many hours about random things, over hundreds of sessions for the last 5 years or so.

How many factual mistakes or bad jokes or things people could get annoyed about could we quote from what was said in your talks? My guess is a lot, for everyone including me.

But if youd listen to more than just a few quotes, Rogan makes many disclaimers, says over and over again how people shouldnt just blindly listen to him, should double check the facts, that what he says is just his opinio etc.. so i give him a pass for his mistakes

So true!

Not to flog a long dead horse or anything, but this opinion piece sums up my current feelings about Joe Rogan. The minute he used his massive platform to spread COVID misinformation and discourage people from getting vaccinated, I would say he clearly crossed the line from harmless loudmouth to dangerous propagandist.

https://www.nbcnews.com/...info-matters-ncna1265812

I do not think he ever spread misinformation. I think that he gives the people spreading the information, a platform to put theories out there in order to give the opportunity for someone more "in the know" to call bullshit. A lot of times he gives people enough rope to hang themselves with. As far as being a meat eater, the argument is moot. Agriculture, whether meat or vegetable does incredible damage to wildlife all of the way down to the microscopic level. I think to ask whether he is good or bad is counterproductive. He is a vehicle. That is it

Absolutely, my friend. He is, in all fairness, a comedian who fell into the position he is currently in. Any comedian will tell you that they aren't always home runs, and the line (and what crosses it) is relative to the time in which it is heard or seen, not to when it was written. Which is why so many things these days, that were once considered to be wholesome, are now not only taboo, but considered immensely offensive to some circles. It is of my humblest opinion that Joe does his very best to purvey the objectivity expected of a highly acclaimed journalist. It is probably very difficult to record his podcast. lol I am listening to him right now, he literally just said "When I say something stupid, I am not thinking about what I am going to say before I say it. I don't have an on air and off air voice.." right from the horse's mouth. Lol, just my opinion, but I am biased, as I am a fan, and the podcast has helped me improve my health and cultivate better habits, as well as given me a bunch of cool information I had been completely unaware of before listening to the podcast.

With all due respect, comparing COVID to the flu is misinformation. Pontificating about how young people will respond to the virus when he doesn't have the slightest fucking idea what he's talking about is spreading misinformation. And encouraging people not to get vaccinated will contribute to the spread of the virus and to vaccine resistant variants that hang around forever.

Somebody somewhere will die because of the garbage that poured out of his freakish looking head the other day. I would say that's pretty bad.