Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Jan 11, 2017 – Commercial-free Vegan Wednesday, Episode 8

Posted on January 11th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Tyler from California called and we spoke about the ethics of veganism.  Tyler agreed that unnecessary harm and killing is wrong.  He stated there was no medical necessity for eating meat (harming killing animals) but didn’t think it was an ethical issue.

I disagree, to be ethically consistent, unless the harm/killing is necessary to preserve our life/health, it is unethical.  Tyler gave two examples of eating meat being ethical, he presented the situation where one has no choice but to kill and eat an animal to survive.  Yes, that is ethical and makes the point for veganism, not against.

Also spoke with Neo from Riverside, Calif.  While we have seen success with a trial by declaration, I would still want to go to court to cross-examine the police officer, if that bother to show.

              

26 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    My GOD, the level of ignorance in the Tyler call is simply astounding. And, to Tyler, increasing the volume of your argument does not improve its validity. Marc, your argument that Tyler needs a doctor(a government verified and controlled label, by the way) to tell him what is a healthy diet is way out there man. Way out there! And as to ethics, it sounds to me, Marc, that you are suggesting that one’s personal needs trump the life of another. You say that if your life depends upon it then it is alright to end* the life of another. Really??? My life trumps another’s life? I hope you’ll give this some more thought.

    *of course I’m not talking about defence against initiated violence.

  2. NonEntity Says:

    And Marc, your claim of “medical proof!” cries out to the idea that correlation is not causation. The current very recent discoveries of the profound importance of gut flora to every part of the functioning of all systems of human health reveals the vast ignorance in the field of human health. David Perlmutter is a good source of information on this issue for those wanting to dip their toe into this new field of knowledge.

  3. Andy Says:

    NAZI strawman alert: “it sounds to me, Marc, that you are suggesting that one’s personal needs trump the life of another.”

  4. Andy Says:

    Yeah, that’s what Marc was saying /sarcasm.
    Obviously, NAZIentity doesn’t know Marc at all.

  5. Kevin Reno Says:

    Wrong- Ethics is a reciprocal obligation. Non-human animals are not capable of suffering. The anthropomorphizing of non-human animals is unethical in that they cannot speak for themselves, and to represent them without consent is inconsistent.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    “Non-human animals are not capable of suffering.” And eYe2 claims there are no psychopaths! (shakes head and grieves for humanity)

  7. Ronnie Says:

    Wth is anthropomorphizing?
    Are you really saying a dog is not capable of suffering?

  8. i.n.rem Says:

    why did I waste my time reading this Non-Compos-Mentos drivel and self -serving bloviation …??

  9. NonEntity Says:

    i.n.rem, I wouldn’t know, basic lack of intellectual capacity would be a guess, if I had to speculate. It’s a podcast, so you could have listened instead of reading. Who knows. But it’s nice of you to bring it up so we could all have our time wasted instead of just you. Thanks! 🙂

  10. eye2i Says:

    @ Ronnie: roughly speaking, what most mean by the signal “anthropomorphizing” is mentally placing human characteristics upon ahuman –‘a’human in the way of ‘a’moral (and ‘an’archy) as a word– upon not-human things and/or concepts. One classic example: “God/Creator” –as “father”. “Government” –as “The People”– what i2 see as being done here with the argument labeled “vegan”, as ahuman (“animals” for some, to also “plants” for yet others) lives being identical with, as equal to human lives. [it happens similarly even with the issue of “abortion” circa fertilized egg = “baby”? and on that plant bit, why isn’t “vegan” equally a politically correctness/insenstitive violation, as a violation of the non-aggression principle?! what did that “living” spinach and kale ever do to you –1st!? “vegan” = “nazi”!? who’s drawing all these lines?]

    Meanwhile, how is it that the Socratic Method is so neglected around these parts? e.g. why hasn’t anyone asked if in K Reno using the term “suffering”, it could possibly be in a qualified way? And to ask, what might that qualified way be? No, let’s just attack based upon our presumption!? (now where have i heard of that being the norm ’round here? Governmentalism much? /snarcasm) NO, IT’S OBVIOUSLY MORE PSYCHOPATHS!!! ?

    …and they call themselves voluntaryists, from the perspective of reduction of conflict per what too often results in the initiation of aggression –including verbal.? aka Statements (pronounced “State-meant”?) instead of questions…

  11. eye2i Says:

    [eta: forgive any PiCness on my part; should “vegan” = “nazi” instead be “vegan” = “jew”? or “vegan” = “cracker”? or “vegan” = “negro”? i dunno with these Lines sometimes…? will there one day be a vegantable (pronounced “vegetable”) holocaust museum…? Enquiring minds needs to know…]

  12. NonEntity Says:

    Quoting Mahk,”I disagree, to be ethically consistent, unless the harm/killing is necessary to preserve our life/health, it is unethical.”…I interpret that as saying that it is ethical to take the life of another to preserve your own health. Izzat what you really meant to say, Marc? (, I’m guessing not, but I pose the question so that you might clarify either your thinking or your answer.)

  13. i.n.rem Says:

    @the bigNoN-Anything

    — i.n.rem Says:
    January 13th, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    why did I waste my time reading this Non-Compos-Mentos drivel and self -serving bloviation …??

    — NonEntity Says:
    January 13th, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    i.n.rem, I wouldn’t know, basic lack of intellectual capacity would be a guess, if I had to speculate. It’s a podcast, so you could have listened instead of reading. Who knows. But it’s nice of you to bring it up so we could all have our time wasted instead of just you. Thanks! 🙂

    well, Non-Consequential
    my comments were not directed at our Host but at YOUR bullshit commentary, ya egotistical fukk

  14. Kevin Reno Says:

    In the light of ethics being a reciprocal obligation, the suffering of non-human animals is projection. Non-human animals are inherently -by human terms- moronic and psychopathic. There is not a one of them that wouldn’t turn around and eat you on the merest whim.
    The quest for moral superiority is pointing out the mote in your neighbors eye while bashing him with the beam in your own.

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    Kevin, you think a cow would eat you on the merest whim? You do know not all animals are carnivores right? There is so much wrong in your comment, please call the show about it.

  16. NonEntity Says:

    Attorneys general. (You know, like “call of shames” only different.)

  17. NonEntity Says:

    HELP!!! A pack of wild rabbits has cornered me and are eating the flesh from my legs!!! HELP HELP HELP OMG, IMA GONNA DIE!

  18. Calvin Says:

    I keep hearing “most doctors” as if that lends credibility to what follows. Let’s think this one through:

    Most doctors” prescribe their patients pharmaceuticals, for say depression, before exhausting a healthy exercise and diet regimen. Does that mean they aren’t responsible for more deaths than illegal drug abuse? Just because most doctors may say or do this or that does not automatically make the assertion true, that makes it an appeal to authority & appeal to the masses logical fallacies simultaneously, don’t be that guy. Keep in mind; this is strictly an evidence-based outfit we run here, so we tend to be sticklers over such things.

    Of course they over-prescribe pharmaceuticals because they have a financial incentive to do so. Same with the propped-up statist-managed agricultural complex, which includes the MD experts to support their conclusion-based output levels. Gotta pay-off/subsidize those farmers on the upside and the downside, ya know? Also, when you control what exactly goes into your victim’s body; you weaken them to your advantage. Slavery 102.

  19. David-Ray Says:

    What is your limit on sentience before it is unethical to cause pain an suffering to living entity? How do you detiremine the degree of suffering?

  20. NonEntity Says:

    More doctors smoke Camels than any other brand!

  21. James La Scalia, Jr. Says:

    Oh nutricide oh nutricide won’t you feed my baby. Oh nutricide oh nutricide why do you weaken my old lady. Oh nutricide oh nutricide the food for thought you feed my body…. its inert ingredients make my head go crazy.

  22. NonEntity Says:

    Should this be sung to the tune of Tannenbaum?

  23. James La Scalia, Jr. Says:

    The song is really about truth and loyalty of the pine needles to the evergreen…And in the reflective it has a much greater significance and meaning as was intended in it ORIGINAL meaning. Wiki it . So I would have to say YES as it refers to the deception of those that do not possess the resilience of the great line that became associated with Christmas. The melody was an accidental cadince that popped very into my head thru no accident of my own. JLJR.

  24. NonEntity Says:

    Wiki it? Wiki what?

  25. Kevin Reno Says:

    Hey Marc, I’m a big fan, but pretty sure I’d freeze up on the air.
    It’s real simple. Cattle are incapable of whimsy, and therefore of whims. They’re big dumb segments of a herd mentality. Able to kill you with a single kick.
    They’re selected to be happiest when being raised to provide quality food and every bit of them is useful for the health and happiness of humanity.
    Cattle cannot understand anything. They are blunt automatons, not cute black and white creatures carrying signs saying ‘aAt moR Ckikn’.

  26. NonEntity Says:

    Kevin has just described the perspective that bankers and politicians have towards “citizens.”

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream broadcast via Ustream.tv. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here