• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Newly Developing Philosophy

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I need help developing a philosophy.. or, perhaps more accurately, a nutritional ideology. But maybe this is a religion. I don’t know how to categorize it, but I do have an idea of what to call it. My purpose for outlining this here is to gather feedback through discussion to help me refine this philosophy further. I am calling this philosophy Ketonism. I hesitate to introduce it as ‘the opposite of veganism’ because I feel very strongly about this and I feel much like a Christian might feel about introducing their religion to the unexposed with the opening statement, “you know Satanism? Well, we’re the opposite of that”…

Ketonism is the name of my newly forming philosophy, followers of which are called ‘Ketons’ collectively, or ‘Keton’ individually (not to be confused with “Ketones”, which is at the core of the practice, but offensive to use the word to refer to individuals).
Ketonism is the practice of eliminating plant-based products from one’s diet, and where possible, avoiding products that are produced through the exploitation of plants. The foundation of the practice of this philosophy is called a Ketogenic diet (something that has existed far longer than my notion of a philosophy based on it, and nothing that I can take any credit for). However, this is just one part of it. The ideology of this diet, of Ketonism, as I am calling it, is focused on the notion that the Animal Kingdom has for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, had the ability to be ambulatory… animals can move around… migrate… avoid danger, and seek new opportunities for access to resources and reproductive success.

Throughout more recent evolutionary history, certain animals have taken an evolutionary path (‘chosen’, if you would grant me the use of a sloppy term) towards domestication. The obvious example of the Wolf->dog branching… Dogs have chosen to give up their wolf-born freedom for a guaranteed meal. Cows, chickens, pigs, etc.. all have chosen to stand in line for human consumption, because the standing on that line is a far better option than what was in store for their distant ancestors that had to experience pure Darwinism in the wild, suffering the most horrible deaths imaginable. The Keton celebrates these animals, and thankfully accepts their choice. “Everyone wins” kind of thing.

The Plant Kingdom, on the other hand, has not had the same opportunities for choosing domestication as Animals have. Plants are the unwilling slaves of human consumption. They have been forced to exist in one place or another, mutated to the whims of human indulgence, and exploited for countless other purposes. The Keyton is opposed to this exploitation and is committed to the spreading of awareness of the inequities we impose on the Plant Kingdom, and protest in the form of refusal to purchase products that are made through the exploitation of Plants. Just because a Plant doesn’t have two eyes on either side of a ‘face’ and a mouth in the middle to lick your fingers, is no reason to discriminate against an entire Kingdom of life on Earth.

This is a very challenging philosophy. No doubt many will balk at its obvious challenges, such as the difficulty with avoiding use of paper and wood, finding alternatives, and educating others. I welcome your opinions and any discussion about these types of challenges and also look forward to hearing about the issues I didn’t even begin to think of.

One last thought… Vegans are NOT an enemy. It is too easy to fall into the trap of vilifying those that do not share the same philosophies as you do. I urge those that choose to embrace this to seek to educate and convert, not to vilify and spread hate, to those that have chosen the wrong path.

Thank you, all.
 
Well, you can't really say that chickens and cows have "chosen" domestication anymore than you can say that Africans in the 19th century "chose" to take a boatride across the Atlantic in exchange for free accomodation on a plantation. Various people have made the argument that slavery was a net positive because the descendants of the slaves in America are healthier and more prosperous than the descendants of those who remained in Africa. Your philosophy seems to be analogous to that. I don't mean that as some kind of trite slur, that's actually how I'm reading your logic. Would you disagree with my assessment and why?

If the central aspect of your argument is domestication, I fail to see the relevant difference between someone taking a pig, fencing off the area it's allowed to be in and then tending it until it reproduces and is ready to be eaten and somebody taking a piece of corn, planting it in a certain place and then tending it until it sprouts seeds and is ready to be eaten. Given that there is even less relation between the plants that we eat and their wild breathren which we first domesticated than there is between the animals that we eat and their wild breathren, I don't see the basis for your distinction here. Both were taken by us against their will and forced to evolve in a manner which maximizes their use to us as a food source and both are arguably healthier and better tended to than they would be in the wild. Could you expand upon why one is a positive to be celebrated and the other is irrelevant and should be dismissed?
 
Thank you for the feedback, Tom.

I really would rather keep human consciousness out of scope. I am not proposing that this philosophy justifies the capture and enslavement of sentient beings, due to what might be a short term social adaptation. The core thesis was not meant to apply to the individual (captive), but to the population (domestication), of non-sentient beings. dogs were not enslaved, they figured out how to partner with us. I propose a similar view of the 'barnyard animals'. The distinction I make between the Kingdoms is about the potential to make choice, despite the choice not being a sentient one.

Vegans "feel bad" for the animals that we have "taken advantage of". They have no feelings for any other non-human life form, for completely arbitrary reasons. Why must a creature have a face before we care about it? It is my proposition that the Vegans have it backwards and that it is plants that need our protection from us, not the animals.
 
Thank you for the feedback, Tom.

I really would rather keep human consciousness out of scope. I am not proposing that this philosophy justifies the capture and enslavement of sentient beings, due to what might be a short term social adaptation. The core thesis was not meant to apply to the individual (captive), but to the population (domestication), of non-sentient beings. dogs were not enslaved, they figured out how to partner with us. I propose a similar view of the 'barnyard animals'. The distinction I make between the Kingdoms is about the potential to make choice, despite the choice not being a sentient one.

OK, but there's not really an analogy between our domestication of dogs and our domestication of animals we use for food like pigs and cows. The most common theories of dog domestication talk about how when wolf packs started sniffing around our fires, some of them had lower levels of adrenelin (or serotonin .. or some other chemical - I forget what exactly causes anxiety) and were less anxious than their packmates. This allowed them to come closer to us and our fires and get an easy food source from the bones we discarded. This subset of wolves were selected upon to eventually evolve into dogs and transfered their loyalty towards the pack into loyalty towards us.

There's nothing comparable in regards to barnyard animals. Our domestication of them is much more comparable to our domestication of plants. We grabbed the most docile, herded and/or penned them in and tended them until they were ready to eat in the same manner as we grabbed the most edible plants, put them in the ground and tended them until they were ready to eat. Dogs "made a choice", evolutionarily speaking and selected themselves to become our companions. It was a symbiotic relationship between our two species where each of us made choices which worked to our own species' advantage. That's the type of thing you seem to be speaking of in your philosophy and I can't see anything similar in how we got barnyard animals, who were forced into their roles by us.

Vegans "feel bad" for the animals that we have "taken advantage of". They have no feelings for any other non-human life form, for completely arbitrary reasons. Why must a creature have a face before we care about it? It is my proposition that the Vegans have it backwards and that it is plants that need our protection from us, not the animals.

So, are you saying that this is just a fake and sarcastic philosophy you're making up to throw in the face of vegans in order to show how stupid their philosophy is, akin to the Flying Spagetti Monster in regards to religion? Or is this something you really believe and the fact that it can be used to denigrate vegan philosophy is just an added bonus - sort of like if you do a favour for your old high school buddy by letting his sister stay at your place while she's looking at universities and it just so turns out that she's planning on paying for school by working as a prostitute and wants to use you to practice her tradecraft?
 
It is a fallacy to think the end result of a process is the intended result of a process. There is no foresight in evolution.

Cows and chickens did not have a steering committee of forward minded animals, who decided a life being housed and fed was a fair exchange for a shorter life.
 
It is a fallacy to think the end result of a process is the intended result of a process. There is no foresight in evolution.

Cows and chickens did not have a steering committee of forward minded animals, who decided a life being housed and fed was a fair exchange for a shorter life.

Maybe testing against what is leads to principles for that which is testing. (association, grouping, boundaries, etc.)
 
sort of like if you do a favour for your old high school buddy by letting his sister stay at your place while she's looking at universities and it just so turns out that she's planning on paying for school by working as a prostitute and wants to use you to practice her tradecraft?

This happened to you too?!
 
sort of like if you do a favour for your old high school buddy by letting his sister stay at your place while she's looking at universities and it just so turns out that she's planning on paying for school by working as a prostitute and wants to use you to practice her tradecraft?

This happened to you too?!

Ya, fine. I can't back up the claim that anybody in my high school wanted to be my friend. I retract the statement. :(
 
It is a fallacy to think the end result of a process is the intended result of a process. There is no foresight in evolution.

Cows and chickens did not have a steering committee of forward minded animals, who decided a life being housed and fed was a fair exchange for a shorter life.

Maybe testing against what is leads to principles for that which is testing. (association, grouping, boundaries, etc.)

I have no idea what this means.
 
It never ends well for a plant or any other living organism. The beauty is that they get to experience life. What is the difference if plants get washed away by a flood, a deer chewing them to death or humans cultivating them? At least they get to experience life before they die, just like humans.

How do you know if its not worth it for a plant to be grown to die?
 
It never ends well for a plant or any other living organism. The beauty is that they get to experience life. What is the difference if plants get washed away by a flood, a deer chewing them to death or humans cultivating them? At least they get to experience life before they die, just like humans.

How do you know if its not worth it for a plant to be grown to die?

Plants are notoriously racist. If they're grown on a farm, it generally means that they're tended to by Mexican illegal aliens and that really pisses them off.
 
OK, but there's not really an analogy between our domestication of dogs and our domestication of animals we use for food like pigs and cows. The most common theories of dog domestication talk about how when wolf packs started sniffing around our fires, some of them had lower levels of adrenelin (or serotonin .. or some other chemical - I forget what exactly causes anxiety) and were less anxious than their packmates. This allowed them to come closer to us and our fires and get an easy food source from the bones we discarded. This subset of wolves were selected upon to eventually evolve into dogs and transfered their loyalty towards the pack into loyalty towards us.

There's nothing comparable in regards to barnyard animals. Our domestication of them is much more comparable to our domestication of plants. We grabbed the most docile, herded and/or penned them in and tended them until they were ready to eat in the same manner as we grabbed the most edible plants, put them in the ground and tended them until they were ready to eat. Dogs "made a choice", evolutionarily speaking and selected themselves to become our companions. It was a symbiotic relationship between our two species where each of us made choices which worked to our own species' advantage. That's the type of thing you seem to be speaking of in your philosophy and I can't see anything similar in how we got barnyard animals, who were forced into their roles by us.

Vegans "feel bad" for the animals that we have "taken advantage of". They have no feelings for any other non-human life form, for completely arbitrary reasons. Why must a creature have a face before we care about it? It is my proposition that the Vegans have it backwards and that it is plants that need our protection from us, not the animals.

So, are you saying that this is just a fake and sarcastic philosophy you're making up to throw in the face of vegans in order to show how stupid their philosophy is, akin to the Flying Spagetti Monster in regards to religion? Or is this something you really believe and the fact that it can be used to denigrate vegan philosophy is just an added bonus - sort of like if you do a favour for your old high school buddy by letting his sister stay at your place while she's looking at universities and it just so turns out that she's planning on paying for school by working as a prostitute and wants to use you to practice her tradecraft?

I'm going to go with the prostitute analogy to describe my position.

- - - Updated - - -

So where do fish fall into this "new philosophy"?

Fish are a-OK.
 
It never ends well for a plant or any other living organism. The beauty is that they get to experience life. What is the difference if plants get washed away by a flood, a deer chewing them to death or humans cultivating them? At least they get to experience life before they die, just like humans.

How do you know if its not worth it for a plant to be grown to die?

So this here is the subjective part, I guess... and the part I need the most help with...

born to die versus grown to die. saying that plants somehow have less to live for than animals is the offensive bit (not saying you are saying that).
this philosophy is suggesting that plants should get more consideration than animals, because... (help). It just feel right to me, is the best I can say right now.
 
Well, plants don't have a nervous system or a brain, so they can't feel pain. They can't experience either happiness or sadness or any other emotion. Animals can do all of those things.

While I disagree with the vegans, I can at least see the basis of their philosophy. I don't see the basis of yours and how a plant should get more consideration than a rock. Is it simply bacause it's alive?
 
It never ends well for a plant or any other living organism. The beauty is that they get to experience life. What is the difference if plants get washed away by a flood, a deer chewing them to death or humans cultivating them? At least they get to experience life before they die, just like humans.

How do you know if its not worth it for a plant to be grown to die?

So this here is the subjective part, I guess... and the part I need the most help with...

born to die versus grown to die. saying that plants somehow have less to live for than animals is the offensive bit (not saying you are saying that).
this philosophy is suggesting that plants should get more consideration than animals, because... (help). It just feel right to me, is the best I can say right now.

I don't have that same feeling as you. You have to try to figure out what is causing this feeling and then examine it.
 
Well, plants don't have a nervous system or a brain, so they can't feel pain. They can't experience either happiness or sadness or any other emotion. Animals can do all of those things.

While I disagree with the vegans, I can at least see the basis of their philosophy. I don't see the basis of yours and how a plant should get more consideration than a rock. Is it simply bacause it's alive?

because a plant has less facility to protect itself. Equating a nervous system with 'feelings' is a racist human perspective... you might as well give an IQ test to a dolphin, and then declare it has no intelligence because it couldn't even write its name legibly.

VEgans feel like they nee dot be the protectors of animals because they have less facility to communicate their needs and desires (and that they 'matter'). Plants have less of a facility to do that, so therefore need more consideration.

The difference between a rock and a plant (this is a very offensive notion, by the way), is that one reproduces, converts resources to energy, and grows... and the other does not.
 
Well, plants don't have a nervous system or a brain, so they can't feel pain. They can't experience either happiness or sadness or any other emotion. Animals can do all of those things.

While I disagree with the vegans, I can at least see the basis of their philosophy. I don't see the basis of yours and how a plant should get more consideration than a rock. Is it simply bacause it's alive?

because a plant has less facility to protect itself. Equating a nervous system with 'feelings' is a racist human perspective... you might as well give an IQ test to a dolphin, and then declare it has no intelligence because it couldn't even write its name legibly.

VEgans feel like they nee dot be the protectors of animals because they have less facility to communicate their needs and desires (and that they 'matter'). Plants have less of a facility to do that, so therefore need more consideration.

The difference between a rock and a plant (this is a very offensive notion, by the way), is that one reproduces, converts resources to energy, and grows... and the other does not.

What do you mean it's "racist"? That's a cheap and lazy way to avoid backing up the point.

The heart of the vegan philosophy is that eating animals causes an increase in suffering, so therefore it's bad. Plants have no more capacity for suffering than rocks do, so it's a valid comparison between the two. It's not a racist human perspective to equate the need for a nervous system and brain with feelings, it's how feelings work. Feelings aren't just vague and generic "things", they're the end result of a process which requires anatomical structures to function. Your dolphin analogy is nonsensical. Dolphins have brains and can therefore perform intelligent actions, despite those actions not being things which can be measured by an IQ test. There's no equivalent in plants which allows them to experience "feelings", despite not having a nervous system and brain to experience and process those feelings.

Now, I assume that your exception to the point that I made is due to your holding to the notion that plants have some sort of capacity for feeling and eating them causes an increase in suffering amongst a species which hasn't "consented" to the suffering in the same way that you argue animals have. How is it that you think these feelings and suffering work?
 
because a plant has less facility to protect itself. Equating a nervous system with 'feelings' is a racist human perspective... you might as well give an IQ test to a dolphin, and then declare it has no intelligence because it couldn't even write its name legibly.

VEgans feel like they nee dot be the protectors of animals because they have less facility to communicate their needs and desires (and that they 'matter'). Plants have less of a facility to do that, so therefore need more consideration.

The difference between a rock and a plant (this is a very offensive notion, by the way), is that one reproduces, converts resources to energy, and grows... and the other does not.

What do you mean it's "racist"? That's a cheap and lazy way to avoid backing up the point.

The heart of the vegan philosophy is that eating animals causes an increase in suffering, so therefore it's bad. Plants have no more capacity for suffering than rocks do, so it's a valid comparison between the two. It's not a racist human perspective to equate the need for a nervous system and brain with feelings, it's how feelings work. Feelings aren't just vague and generic "things", they're the end result of a process which requires anatomical structures to function. Your dolphin analogy is nonsensical. Dolphins have brains and can therefore perform intelligent actions, despite those actions not being things which can be measured by an IQ test. There's no equivalent in plants which allows them to experience "feelings", despite not having a nervous system and brain to experience and process those feelings.

Now, I assume that your exception to the point that I made is due to your holding to the notion that plants have some sort of capacity for feeling and eating them causes an increase in suffering amongst a species which hasn't "consented" to the suffering in the same way that you argue animals have. How is it that you think these feelings and suffering work?

You repeating your racist statements that the lives of plants (the Plant race) matter just as much as an inanimate object (a rock) further proves my point that people are just too racist against plants to even consider their feelings. Plants respond to music, rocks don't.
You ask how I think feelings work.. well how does race 'work'.. how do 'feelings' work in people versus animals? how do you know this is any different in plants (who lack the ability to bite you or run away)
 
Back
Top Bottom