Myq Kaplan and I have a fight.

[Jesse P-S]

Comedian Myq Kaplan came on my comedy podcast to just have a good time and make with the jokey jokes, and then instead we started fighting about Veganism and animal rights.

Listen: http://podawful.com/post/6768838304/myqkaplan

[Jesse P-S]

Here is a direct link to the file if you would prefer: http://blip.tv/file/get/PodAwful-VEG...SON3301751.mp3

[myq]

The things that Jesse has said are true! Thanks for saying them. And thanks to you for viewing them, whoever you are.

[James Morris]

Myq, you're a trooper for indulging this guy. Wow. Just wow.

[smartbunny]

Don't fight with Myq. He's a nice boy.

[Shauno]

Well, all right.

[BFH]

This conversation was not a "fight." Advertising it as such was false. It was a discussion.

Myq is not a militant vegan. He was not unreasonable. He is far more forgiving of other people eating animals than I am.

I don't know if Jesse really presented an argument, it just seemed like he was being contrary. His failure to grasp Myq's position is either disingenuous or very disturbing - I have lots of friends who are omnivorous, and even if we disagree about the ethics of animal products, they understand why cruelty to animals itself is wrong.

[suavepebble]

True story: The first time Myq posted on this board I was unforgivingly drunk and far beyond my rights as far as typing shit on the internet is concerned. I responded to his very polite message with some shit about math and 1233456 = and a bunch of other ambiguous nothingness that -- in my mind at the time -- was some serious, serious stuff about the truth and the way.

Myq Kaplan, the saint, just went "We are all one manifestion and all roads lead to home. I love you and I believe in love."

Myq Kaplan is a nice guy.

[RoyalDutchOfDukes]

Yup, sounds like my instincts about this were right! Glad I didn't listen to it, thanks for taking the hit, other people.

P.S. I like Myq. I don't like people manufacturing conflict to get people to listen to their shitty podcast.

[Shauno]

You could say it was Pod Awful.

[pixel revolt]

So it wasn't a fight but if it had been the host would have been the wrong one in the fight? Sounds cool, AST.

[James Morris]

I could be wrong, but I think the host has kind of a hard on for the whole Ayn Rand anti-altruism philosophy, also it sounded like he might be a libertarian. I'm skeptical that he's really a sociopath (this was brought up on the show), but I think he isn't allowing for compromise within his philosophies, which makes his criticism of religious "sheep" kind of funny.

[funkyrhino]

Don't fight with Myq. He's a nice boy.

until you make him angry, then he'll bust you in your cabbage!

[The9mm]

Why didn't you just post this advertising that Myq Kaplan was on your podcast? Not enough pull?
Also: I like Myq!

[scamboogah]

Whatta douche (not Myq)...

[myq]

Myq, you're a trooper...

And you're a super. Or just super. If you're a super, then I bet you're a super super.

Don't fight with Myq. He's a nice boy.

until you make him angry, then he'll bust you in your cabbage!

Hey you two, don't fight with each other about fighting with me! Or do. You did! Good work.
You guys are supers also.

Myq is not a militant vegan. He was not unreasonable. He is far more forgiving of other people eating animals than I am.

I don't know if Jesse really presented an argument, it just seemed like he was being contrary. His failure to grasp Myq's position is either disingenuous or very disturbing - I have lots of friends who are omnivorous, and even if we disagree about the ethics of animal products, they understand why cruelty to animals itself is wrong.

Your friends sound super! Or at least regular and reasonable.
Thanks!

P.S. I like Myq.

Does "P.S." here stand for "pretty super"? You bet!

You could say it was Pod Awful.

That would be a super-accurate way of describing the title of the podcast.

Sounds cool, AST.

Superior. (Running out of ways to use the word "super" differently. Might have to switch to some "soup or" related soundplay.

I could be wrong, but I think the host has kind of a hard on for the whole Ayn Rand anti-altruism philosophy, also it sounded like he might be a libertarian. I'm skeptical that he's really a sociopath (this was brought up on the show), but I think he isn't allowing for compromise within his philosophies, which makes his criticism of religious "sheep" kind of funny.

I also don't think he's really a sociopath, because I believe sociopaths are better at covering their tracks and not leading people to ask them if they are in fact sociopaths. Did I talk about this on the show? Would that be the greatest trick a sociopath ever pulled? (Or the most super trick? I know, it's over.)

He's a young guy, but pretty well-informed and intelligent. He brought up some points that, regardless of how unreasonable some of his positions or attitudes were, required some more substantial thinking than I usually have to do on the subject, which is important to clarify my own beliefs to myself, to make sure that I'm thinking and behaving as logically and consistently and reasonably as I can. Ultimately, I'm glad he wasn't able to trick me out my beliefs--he wasn't a super duper.

Why didn't you just post this advertising that Myq Kaplan was on your podcast? Not enough pull?
Also: I like Myq!

I like you. Also, super! (It's back! Did it go anywhere really?)

True story: The first time Myq posted on this board I was unforgivingly drunk and far beyond my rights as far as typing shit on the internet is concerned. I responded to his very polite message with some shit about math and 1233456 = and a bunch of other ambiguous nothingness that -- in my mind at the time -- was some serious, serious stuff about the truth and the way.

Myq Kaplan, the saint, just went "We are all one manifestion and all roads lead to home. I love you and I believe in love."

Myq Kaplan is a nice guy.

Aww. Superb. You're nice. Good work living, everyone!

[The9mm]

I also don't think he's really a sociopath, because I believe sociopaths are better at covering their tracks and not leading people to ask them if they are in fact sociopaths. Did I talk about this on the show? Would that be the greatest trick a sociopath ever pulled? (Or the most super trick? I know, it's over.)

He's a young guy, but pretty well-informed and intelligent. He brought up some points that, regardless of how unreasonable some of his positions or attitudes were, required some more substantial thinking than I usually have to do on the subject, which is important to clarify my own beliefs to myself, to make sure that I'm thinking and behaving as logically and consistently and reasonably as I can. Ultimately, I'm glad he wasn't able to trick me out my beliefs--he wasn't a super duper.

At first I did not want to respond about the actual points, but now I will:
You're completely correct on the solipsism/idealism. You cannot know the apparatus of perception and computation that we commonly call brain. It does not matter if you knew less before. You cannot even tell what is going on with whatever is you. So speculating and relating it to something that is experience and calling it remembrance or whatever, is probably not applicable. Speculation about that matter is pretty futile.

Secondly about the veganism: I did not listen to the whole thing, because I couldn't continue with the half-bakedness of his points, but honestly you were debating about a couple of things that I want to make some remarks about:
Favoring another human being over an animal makes sense in certain areas of biology and especially when considering selfish gene theory. Should an intelligent being act upon these rules? Well, therein lies the crux that is morality. I haven't seen anyone prove any moral system and it's absolute tenants in anyway so that it would be objective and mandatory to adhere to. They have no compelling foundation and break down.
But this doesn't compel one to eat animals or not. It's up to you and how you decide. If you can't live with animals suffering, you will act on that.
But you cannot tell a meat-eater that what they are doing is morally wrong.

I think that veganism and vegetarianism have another compelling argument behind them that is often overlooked: They both are more efficient dieting styles to acquire nutrients. Growing plants requires less resources and produces less waste and environmental damage and is therefore the energy efficient choice of diet.

[Couldn'tThinkOfaName]

Let's not.

[BFH]

You cannot tell a meat-eater that what they are doing is morally wrong.

Sure you can. Though I prefer to speak of "ethics" instead of "morals," they're often used interchangeably, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

An animal is a living, sentient being with its own consciousness and ability to reason. (Some have more capacity than others - compare a goldfish to a house cat to a human infant to a nuclear physicist to Terri Schiavo circa late 1990s/early 2000s.) For me, that's more important to understanding the argument for not eating meat than whether or not something has a face, is cute, is smart, can be a pet, has a family, or has feelings.

I find it immoral/unethical to kill another living, sentient being except in self-defense (and I'm guessing statistically, human animals are much more a threat to my well-being than nonhuman animals). I find it immoral/unethical to consume the flesh of what is or what was a living, sentient being, with the possible exception of no other option being available for survival (deserted island, zombie apocalypse, etc.).

In the first world... in the western world... in America, for certain... consuming an animal is not necessary for survival. So the choice to eat meat is done so because of a personal preference for the taste (though some omnivores, ex-vegans, and ex-vegetarians claim their meat-eating is for health reasons... assuming I accept that at face value, then I can just put that under the "survival" umbrella). For me, one's enjoyment of the taste does not supersede the animal's right to life (if those last three words make anyone uncomfortable, I assure you, this is a different area of discussion for me than reproductive rights and sovereignty over one's body versus whether or not a fetus has personhood). Any assertion to the contrary seems immoral/unethical to me.

I understand Myq, myself, and my vegan and vegetarian friends are in the minority (no need to try to talk us out of our stance), and I am realistic about how many people would be won over by my words. I merely articulate the argument to show that it can be made.

I see the campaigns for both humane treatment of animals and sustainable food production practices to have more realistically attainable goals than the idea of vegetarianism and veganism becoming the majority lifestyle. Still, even I used to be a meat eater, so I do believe that it's worthwhile to advocate for veganism (and there are many rhetorical strategies to doing that - I prefer presenting someone a delicious vegan meal over handing them an extremist organization's pamphlet comparing Colonel Sanders to Adolf Hitler) and to win people over to the darkside (hail seitan!).

[The9mm]

Sure you can. Though I prefer to speak of "ethics" instead of "morals," they're often used interchangeably, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

An animal is a living, sentient being with its own consciousness and ability to reason.

I find it immoral/unethical to kill another living, sentient being except in self-defense (and I'm guessing statistically, human animals are much more a threat to my well-being than nonhuman animals). I find it immoral/unethical to consume the flesh of what is or what was a living...

Well, ethics or an ethical system rather would refer to a well reasoned and well defined system of morals (things that are right or wrong in the context of the system) that is also correct. Correctness would require a generalized foundation of that system that applies to all organisms capable of adhering to the system and from which the tenants of the system logically follow, compelling everyone to adhere to it.
Something like that does not exist to my knowledge.
Why should I not kill a sentient, intelligent creature? Of course this is a monstrous question but it should be asked to emphasize the point of the Is-Ought-Dichotomy that you are unable to bridge.

Morals on the other hand are simply behavior patterns to which adherence is fluctuating over time. In reality morality in this sense is the only thing that exists.
Your flavor of morality/ your morals might be considered by a lot of smart people to be smart, but they are not correct as prescriptive statements.
Therefore you cannot tell, in the sense of order, someone to feel immoral about his choice to eat meat.

If you want to know more about this check out moral nihilism.