[Weatherlight]

I wanted to say that myself but it didn't form in my tiny brain. For a moment, I even thought I may be wrong on this issue.

Say what? What issue? Sorry, totally lost me.

Sorry, totally slaughtered your name.

Damn effing right I'm set on blame!

This is why I can't answer your questions on inherent fault, blame, culpability. I believe true ethics are independent of them, and I believe that they are purely created concepts without logical basis. In a less-than-ideal world, they can arguably be applied to create more moral consequences, but the same goes for fascism, theocracy, genocide, mass brainwashing, capital punishment, and many other things that morality does not inherently include.

Is it still wrong to leave the store without the pig?

Yes, it is wrong for that pig to be left to suffer and die. It is also even more wrong to purchase a slave, giving financial incentive for the slave dealer to continue stocking more slaves, and so causing hir to pay mills to breed more slaves, etc.

So you're saying we should try to take away humans' free will and force them to be less harmful to animals and the environment?

I don't believe in unmoved movers, nonphysical souls manipulating physical brains, etc. Atoms and cells in brains can change, just like atoms and cells in livers and blood. Actually, they are all changing constantly.

But if you're saying that "free will" is what separates humans from the "lower" animals, and makes them worthy of blame rather than worthy of moral consideration, then now we're getting somewhere.

Neither have I, but the title speaks for itself.

I don't see how it applies.

Which one of us is talking in theory and which one is being realistic? I have to admit I get a little confused when talking to you like this.

Hah, same. I meant in reality. I don't believe that ignoring humans living in poverty will lead to their extinction. While something like Charitable Gift Giving that Makes a Difference | Heifer International I would agree is immoral for many reasons, I see raising the quality of life for such humans as generally moral, even if it makes it easier for them to breed viable offspring.

Because wild animals have equilibrium with the environment. Humans do not.

They have equilibrium with the environment. That means according to Darwinism, the stronger ones will find food while the weaker ones die out - some from starvation no doubt. Humans have been able to defy Darwinism for short bursts of time...

"The environment" is a description, as are "natural" and "evolution." There is no defying a description, only a prescription. Remember that Darwinian "fitness" is the ability to pass on genes. To illustrate (this is called an analogy), if some superpowerful aliens came to Earth and instantly wiped out all vegans, everyone with an IQ over 80, and all right-handed people, those would become the "weaker" and the ones to survive and breed--left-handed nonvegans with an IQ of 80 or less--would be the fittest. Or if you prefer, the species that cannot adapt to and breed despite human pollution, environmental destruction, poaching, etc and become extinct are the "weaker," and those who can are the more fit. Switch out humans for volcanoes, earthquakes, or other organisms that expand into other ecosystems.

Anyway, even if you are a nature-worshipper, I don't see how any of that comforts mice and owls who are forced into this world to starve. I see their suffering as significant.

Are you actually thinking about this in a realistic sense? It's what I think should happen in theory, and thus, there would be no "mistakes" that "slip by."

Why do you think it should be males only in theory, then?

In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world. Clearer this time?

You mean in the battle of passing on my genes vs my genes not being passed on in the world, bet on the latter? Certainly, as I don't plan to breed. I don't see it as a battle.

My anger and hatred that remain are mostly directed at others who still are what I used to be.

Such as dualists, religionists, supernaturalists, speciesists? It's interesting that you hate Homo sapiens sapiens, which is a taxonomic classification, and taxonomy is invented by Western humans. Even the supposedly objective standard of "members of a species can breed with themselves but not with those of other species" doesn't work; it's all human construct. Do you see what I mean?

I'm certainly far from perfect and I have my failings, but at least I'm aware of them. Most other people aren't in many respects.

Because of the last two words, I would agree. I think most people are, in many other respects. Most people rarely acheive a certain level of sustained happiness and contentment, even when they are happy overall and know of no other way. Something is wrong. As for people who are not even that happy despite themselves and the world, chances go up that they pay more attention.

To grow? Evolve? Learn something?

I don't think there's any way you couldn't, even if you tried. It can be useful to experience different things, but you are constantly. Your frame of mind might seem stagnant but it is not, even if only subtly so.

You might like to be mentally healthier, feel more well-being, plan better, execute plans better. You might like to see yourself as a person freer of irrational biases. You might like to empathize more broadly, see more through others' eyes. I don't know really, either.

Now you got Within Temptation's "See Who I Am" stuck in my head, although I like "Forsaken" more. Damn you.

Yeah, I know what you mean - like setting up hypothetical circumstances that wouldn't actually exist in the real world but are necessary in order for the analogy to fit.

I can see why that analogy was chosen--it's so flexible. You could come up with a series of more plausible analogies that get the point across, each with a more limited range, but again, it gets the point across, and having one is simpler.

To me, that's a logical fallacy.

That is not a logical fallacy. There is no "to me"s in logic. It is either fallacious or it is not.

Because it can be concluded with deductive reasoning that the humans who exploitatively bred the guinea pigs are not going to give those pigs a good home or even care enough for the thought to cross their minds, whereas the parents of human children are supposed to care for the children they bring into the world.

I don't see the relevance. Confused again.

By donating money to feed these children, you're letting the parents off the hook - same as when you buy a sick guinea pig in a pet store, you're letting the store owner and the supplier off the hook, freeing them up to replace that sick pig with another sick pig. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Buying that sick pig is as bad as breeding the replacement pig yourself.

True, they should be acting responsibly. But they are not. Many problems (all?) are the result of irresponsibility on someone's part. That includes guinea pigs and children in need.

What hook are pet store owners and suppliers on?

Buying that sick pig is as bad as breeding the replacement pig yourself. It's very similar to feeding children whose parents can't afford to feed them.

Only if you assume for each child fed, the parents will pump out at least one other.

STOP BREEDING ALREADY. That's my attitude. Humans should know better.

Yes, that goes for all breeders.

The parents are not victims, even if the children are.

I would say they are all victims, but that wasn't your point. Are you saying that aid should be withheld from all of them to avoid the byproduct of helping the parents that is inevitable when helping the children? Punish the children along with the parents, rather than help the parents along with the children?

Why should I suffer because some other guy knocked her up?

That's about valid reasons for getting helpful treatment that has negative effects for others, I guess.

I've often looked at people who stand on the subway, certain that at least some of them would prefer to sit and perhaps were wishing I'd get off my seat, and I wondered "Why should they suffer because I have arthritis (and because I'm selfish)?"

Hell, why should earthworms risk being cut up by shovels and ants suffer being stomped on just because my guinea pigs and I would like to eat?

I wasn't even aware that Tom's of Maine got bought out by Colgate. That's discouraging.

Very. I wasn't pleased when I heard the news in '06. Of course they would try to keep customers-- Tom's of Maine - About - Colgate partnership , Tom's of Maine - Press Release --but it was not convincing.

Now I have to find a new supplier for toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, and shaving cream in addition to soap.

I've switched to Jason and KMF for those. I'd love to find a better, affordable manufacturer but can't, especially for flouride toothpaste.

As for Lush and KMF, I totally get what you're saying, and if you don't want to give them your money, I can't fault you for that. But keep in mind that the issue with these companies has nothing to do with animal testing, only animal ingredients. Buying a vegan product at Lush isn't really any different than buying a vegan product at Whole Foods.

I still give them my money because I like having their products around, kind of like with, well, most companies. I find them tolerable to give money to, but think some of their practices are harmful. And I hate Whole Foods :D

What's your view on Dr. Bronner's?

Never bought it. Seems like another formerly-vegan company that decided to add a "vegetarian" ingredient. Funny labels, the founder must have been an interesting guy.