Joe Rogan good or bad?

[BringsUsTogether]

Well if there is a objective morality, I haven't seen a good argument for why there would be a line between animal and plant life forms when it comes to killing and eating them.

Really?:shock: What about fact that there is a known mechanism by which animals can feel pain, and that no such mechanism seems to exist in plants? When we farm animals we tend to put them through a lot of suffering.

 

[Chan]

What about fact that there is a known mechanism by which animals can feel pain, and that no such mechanism seems to exist in plants?

It's possible to say that plant are "modular" with functions distributed throughout the organism and are thus capable of "losing quite a few leaves" without being endangered. Animals aren't quite as resilient...

And it's also been said that they quite like to take a monkey for a ride now and then :d

 

[Lizz]

when it comes to infringing on the health and wellbeing of other lifeforms, it's ok to care.

this guy sauroman1 your defending proposed recently in a similar thread that was closed that all carnivores are "evil" "terrorists" and should be exterminated, with only herbivores roaming the land. This very dark and intellectually childish mindset is farrrr from caring of the health and wellbeing of all other lifeforms.

Ok yeah that is pretty crazy. I'm never sure if people like that are for real or just trolls.

 

[Chan]

IME, a lot of that sentiment arises from awareness of the documented suffering implicit in modern intensive farming methods, on a literally unimaginable scale.

No-one needs to eat meat, in quantity, every single day. So we don't need to slaughter a billion caged chickens a year or whatever... Fewer chickens, reared in more natural conditions, would make for better meat, for slimmer, healthier, more disciplined consumers, who showed greater appreciation...

 

[Lizz]

I simply made an observation and offered a suggestion based on my positive experience with Castaneda's techniques. If I came off as arrogant, that's your interpretation. I never suggested that anyone adhere to my way of thinking (I'm sure you don't know me well enough to even know my way of thinking). Also, you're thinking of the wrong Don Juan. Castaneda's teacher, Don Juan Matus (whether true story or allegory), was a Toltec shaman, not the 15th century womanizer.:lol: [/quite] ahh I misunderstood my apologies.

You can care without clinging. It's about balance. Emotional over-attachment to a "cause" (or any beliefs for that matter) can be perception-limiting, energy-draining and is just another way the ego makes itself feel "real" and important.

Curious that you reacted the way you did to my words. If I ruffled the feathers of your beliefs, maybe there's a lesson for you there? I think there's something to be said of examining our beliefs and emotional reactions.

See, you're making a lot of assumptions without really knowing "my way of thinking" (or Castaneda's since you obviously don't understand his system of teaching and the Warriors Path that is laid out within his books). I highly recommend reading them. Lots of spiritual gems in there. I'm not being dogmatic- there is wisdom to be found in all sorts of weird places. There are many paths up the same mountain. I found a gem on one and I'm letting others know where to look.

Perhaps it would be helpful to get more information next time you're about to start a rant. This thread is relevant to our discussion and might clarify some things.

Youre right I don't really understand it. I've never read his books (or heard of him for that matter) and only know of them by what narrow quotes you posted here. I suppose they weren't the full picture of what this author's beliefs Entail. To me it Just seemed to advocate apathy. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that letting go of ones sense of self or ego is a wise decision. Nor can I agree with you completely that "clinging" to a cause is necessarily a bad thing either. A lot of people have done tremendous amounts of good by believing in something With all that they have, although there are two sides to every coin.

I might just read those books but they will have to wait in line

I wouldn't attribute my reaction to what you are implying though. There isn't a human on this earth I hate more than myself. I just saw you as being kind of judgemental yourself, and I'm somewhat cantankerous and pointed out a perceived instance of hypocrisy, but now I see that this person is a total Looney hypocrite themselves (you demonize someone for murdering animals and then say that all carnivores should be killed??)

 

[brilliantlydim]

IME, a lot of that sentiment arises from awareness of the documented suffering implicit in modern intensive farming methods, on a literally unimaginable scale.

No-one needs to eat meat, in quantity, every single day. So we don't need to slaughter a billion caged chickens a year or whatever... Fewer chickens, reared in more natural conditions, would make for better meat, for slimmer, healthier, more disciplined consumers, who showed greater appreciation...

I agree. I believe we need food production reform across the spectrum. I think getting into the "you eat meat, you're bad, I eat plants I'm good" fight just detracts from the real issue.

I find mega scale Mono crop agriculture just as disturbing as animal factory farming. When you fly over where I am from, the land looks horrible. Everything sectioned in to squares, all the natural vegetation mowed down long ago, wild life displaced. Now just section after section of canola, wheat, mustard, corn etc. for millions of acres. The earth looks scarred, the soils depleted of minerals and infertile, now saturated with herbicides and pesticides.

I see things like permaculture and the stuff that guys like Allen Savory are doing like mimicking natural grazing patterns, as the directions we need to go.

 

[dboogie]

I dig Joe Rogan, especially enjoy his talks with Graham Hancock on DMT and Ayahuasca. Like someone else mentioned, it opens dialogue on the subject, amongst millions of people. Although, Ive yet to find any. I discovered Deemz on my own and havent had the pleasure to share my experiences with anyone yet. Nor am I too comfortable to bring it up to harldy anyone. The couple times Ive tried, I havent been real comfortable talking about it, the crazy looks I have gotten ya know. However, I do look forward to the day I meet some like-minded individual, preferably a lady friend, that is open and as interested as I am in psychedelics and see their therapeutic value.

 

[BringsUsTogether]

One of the things about Joe Rogan is that he tends to be a bit too conspiracy minded (by my standards at least). He once doubted that we landed on the moon, and often takes the words of people like Rupert Sheldrake for granted.

 

[SpartanII]

Youre right I don't really understand it. I've never read his books (or heard of him for that matter) and only know of them by what narrow quotes you posted here. I suppose they weren't the full picture of what this author's beliefs Entail. To me it Just seemed to advocate apathy. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that letting go of ones sense of self or ego is a wise decision.

It's not the ego itself that's the problem, it's our attachment to it (and its associated thoughts and fear-based emotional reactions) that drains us of the energy we need to fully engage in life, change our thought patterns, connect us to our Spirit/Source, expand our awareness, and face the known and the unknown with clarity and intensity- so in that sense it's actually the opposite of apathy.

"Energy flows where attention goes." -Huna Principle

Nor can I agree with you completely that "clinging" to a cause is necessarily a bad thing either. A lot of people have done tremendous amounts of good by believing in something With all that they have, although there are two sides to every coin.

Like I said, it's about balance. I don't think it's wise to cling to anything, especially something as subjective as beliefs, which can change depending on the point of view they stem from. Over-attachment, or "clinging" to any one point of view can narrow your perspective, making it more difficult to be open to other viewpoints. Detachment fosters clarity since it doesn't let us get too close to anything and lose our objectivity.

I wouldn't attribute my reaction to what you are implying though. There isn't a human on this earth I hate more than myself.

Hating yourself is just a form of self-pity. Self-importance and self-pity are two sides of the same coin. Both are forms of ego-attachment.

 

[Continuum]

"It’s very possible that everybody is exactly the same at the core, but we’re just living these different existences through different biologies, personalities, sexual needs and wants and life experiences. One of the best ways to treat people is to treat them as if they were you living another life. Every person you run into is literally you living another life. If you lived my life, you would be me. If I lived your life, I would be you. I would have your experiences and your genes. Treating others as you would like them to treat you is too abstract. I’m saying treat them as if they ‘were’ you. If we really are one, then I am you and you are me.” ~Joe Rogan/Joe Rogan Experience Podcast…



Apparently this is not a very new Joe Rogan quote, but I just ran across it and think it's awesome. :thumb_up:

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I like Joe. I can't really fault him for saying things that aren't exactly accurate...

He admits that he's only done DMT a few times (2 or 3?) and that was all he needed. IMO, he helps get people interested in the spice, which is a good thing. Anything that pushes people to explore and do research is a good thing, IMO.

I'm also a UFC fan...and he knows a hell of a lot about Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

I get the sense that he is scared of it.

 

[Koornut]

Rogans had a good week of guests so far

 

[spacexplorer]

I like him but he seems to be extremely repetitive nowadays

 

[JustAnotherHuman]

I admire Joe Rogan. I don't like that he speaks of the DMT-pineal gland hypothesis like it's a fact but other than that I think he's cool. He's a psychedelic advocate and we need those in our society. Just my 2 cents

 

[JustATourist]

I never got how people can say killing animals to eat is immoral, as if they are the arbiter of what life forms are ok to kill to eat and which ones are not.

I get why people dont want to eat animals. It"s because we identify with them. If i was to design a scale of what was considered moral to eat starting with the most moralistic comestibles , it would probably go something like this......

1, fallen items that are no longer connected to their living host entity such as fruit.

2, Plants.
3. crustacians, snails, insects and shellfish
4. Fish
5. non mammalian animals such as reptiles and birds.
6. mammals like sheep, cows and goats.
7. mammals like hamsters rabbits and squirrels. They"re more cute than cows,the more ugly an animal is the more justified we feel that we are in eating it.
8. mammals such as cats and dogs - this is where (in the west) that we enter into taboo as cats and dogs are common pets and therefore part of the family. If i was hungry i would be far more likely to eat someone elses cat rather than my own because me and my cat had a bond due to my having anthropomorhasised him.
9, humans (longpig) - in the west we will only eat each other if we are hyper hungry.
10. babies. It is totally immoral to eat babies.

That list is open to critique and there are grey areas and blurred lines. IE is it more moral to eat a fully grown cat over a baby chicken? Would one rather eat a sweet baby rabbit or a fully grown dog?

These are the kind of questions that sometimes keep me up at night.

I didn't say I don't get why people don't want to eat animals. I said I don't get the whole "eating this life form is immoral" point. Liking animals and thinking they are "too cute to eat" has nothing to do the morality of killing and eating something.

I find eating rats disgusting because I associate them with disease, and I find eating dogs disgusting because I look at them like friends, but in some cultures this is ok. I find eating cows ok, but some cultures find it blasphemous. None of that has anything to do with morals, its culture conditioning.

As a whole we are more conditioned to believe animals are a higher order of life form because they more closely resemble us. If we look at it logically the morality thing doesn't make sense. Plants are pretty peaceful, do a lot of good for the earth, and relatively I would say pretty passive and not aggressive, and we says its moral to kill and eat those life forms. But killing an animal like a chicken, that goes around indiscriminately killing and eating other life forms like insects, is immoral.

If you want to look at it from a morality scale, mushrooms should be on the top as they just eat decaying matter, and they should be the most immoral to eat as they are highly intelligent and completely passive from our view point.

Unlike plants, fungi or bacteria, the animals you are referring to are sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, feeling fear, a wide range of emotions, have a decent level of intelligence for certain tasks similar to a human baby for example.

If you think torturing and killing innocent human beings is wrong, it would only make sense that you at least partially extend this compassion to sentient beings like the animals we eat today and avoid hurting them whenever possible, since they share with us many of the characteristics that make a human being worthy of not being murdered.

 

[hug46]

I would say that, for the sake of argument, a wild boar would be more sentient than a newborn baby. Apparently babies don't even realise that they have arms until about 3 months. If we were going purely on a sentience/edibility/morality scale then it would be more ethical for us to eat babies over other adult animals.

On the whole i think that the human scale of compassion is related on how we bond to other sentient beings. An example of this is the reaction to the terrorist attacks in France. All of the developed world lit up their buildings in the colours of the French flag in solidarity and sorrow. Whereas the boko haram attacks didn't really get the same attention. Why is that? Is it because life is much cheaper over there so it doesn't really matter so much to us? Or is it because we are culturally and politically more removed from Africa and therefore less able to relate? I don't really know myself. Would someone from the west (say an Englishman), if they were forced into it, prefer to eat another english person or an african?

 

[Ufostrahlen]

I would say that, for the sake of argument, a wild boar would be more sentient than a newborn baby. Apparently babies don't even realise that they have arms until about 3 months. If we were going purely on a sentience/edibility/morality scale then it would be more ethical for us to eat babies over other adult animals.

On the whole i think that the human scale of compassion is related on how we bond to other sentient beings. An example of this is the reaction to the terrorist attacks in France. All of the developed world lit up their buildings in the colours of the French flag in solidarity and sorrow. Whereas the boko haram attacks didn't really get the same attention. Why is that? Is it because life is much cheaper over there so it doesn't really matter so much to us? Or is it because we are culturally and politically more removed from Africa and therefore less able to relate? I don't really know myself. Would someone from the west (say an Englishman), if they were forced into it, prefer to eat another english person or an african?

People die all the time, so when some Frenchmen had an OBE, I just shrugged my shoulders. Doesn't mean I applauded the terrorist or that a dead fellow person leaves me unmoved.

To answer the question: JR is just boring, unoriginal and a bad interviewer. I watched the episode where he interviewed Rick Doblin, instead of shutting up and letting the guest talk, he uttered self-centered nonsense. Not worth my time.

 

[JustATourist]

I would say that, for the sake of argument, a wild boar would be more sentient than a newborn baby. Apparently babies don't even realise that they have arms until about 3 months. If we were going purely on a sentience/edibility/morality scale then it would be more ethical for us to eat babies over other adult animals.

On the whole i think that the human scale of compassion is related on how we bond to other sentient beings. An example of this is the reaction to the terrorist attacks in France. All of the developed world lit up their buildings in the colours of the French flag in solidarity and sorrow. Whereas the boko haram attacks didn't really get the same attention. Why is that? Is it because life is much cheaper over there so it doesn't really matter so much to us? Or is it because we are culturally and politically more removed from Africa and therefore less able to relate? I don't really know myself. Would someone from the west (say an Englishman), if they were forced into it, prefer to eat another english person or an african?

I’m afraid the comparison with the human baby is not entirely fair because the human baby has a life of full sentience ahead of him (and its richness might overall surpass the boar’s one), so by killing the baby you are preventing this sentient life that already exists of his rich sentient future. Also a baby indeniably already feels pain, as much as the boar

 

[JustATourist]

On the whole i think that the human scale of compassion is related on how we bond to other sentient beings. An example of this is the reaction to the terrorist attacks in France. All of the developed world lit up their buildings in the colours of the French flag in solidarity and sorrow. Whereas the boko haram attacks didn't really get the same attention. Why is that? Is it because life is much cheaper over there so it doesn't really matter so much to us? Or is it because we are culturally and politically more removed from Africa and therefore less able to relate? I don't really know myself. Would someone from the west (say an Englishman), if they were forced into it, prefer to eat another english person or an african?

I think it has to do with the nature of empathy.

Adopting a rational objective cost-benefit analysis (that allows us to think and behave the most ethical way possible) often requires putting empathy aside.

There is a lot of empirical evidence that shows that triggering specific empathic responses in people leads them to do pretty unethical things, or to be inconsistent with their own ethical principles.



“The key to engaging empathy is what has been called “the identifiable victim effect.” As the economist Thomas Schelling, writing forty-five years ago, mordantly observed, “Let a six-year-old girl with brown hair need thousands of dollars for an operation that will prolong her life until Christmas, and the post office will be swamped with nickels and dimes to save her. But let it be reported that without a sales tax the hospital facilities of Massachusetts will deteriorate and cause a barely perceptible increase in preventable deaths—not many will drop a tear or reach for their checkbooks.”

You can see the effect in the lab. The psychologists Tehila Kogut and Ilana Ritov asked some subjects how much money they would give to help develop a drug that would save the life of one child, and asked others how much they would give to save eight children. The answers were about the same. But when Kogut and Ritov told a third group a child’s name and age, and showed her picture, the donations shot up—now there were far more to the one than to the eight. The number of victims hardly matters—there is little psychological difference between hearing about the suffering of five thousand and that of five hundred thousand.

Imagine reading that two thousand people just died in an earthquake in a remote country, and then discovering that the actual number of deaths was twenty thousand. Do you now feel ten times worse? To the extent that we can recognize the numbers as significant, it’s because of reason, not empathy. In the broader context of humanitarianism, as critics like Linda Polman have pointed out, the empathetic reflex can lead us astray. When the perpetrators of violence profit from aid—as in the “taxes” that warlords often demand from international relief agencies—they are actually given an incentive to commit further atrocities. It is similar to the practice of some parents in India who mutilate their children at birth in order to make them more effective beggars. The children’s debilities tug at our hearts, but a more dispassionate analysis of the situation is necessary if we are going to do anything meaningful to prevent them.”

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/capstone/BloomAgainstEmpathy.pdf

 

[hug46]

I’m afraid the comparison with the human baby is not entirely fair because the human baby has a life of full sentience ahead of him (and its richness might overall surpass the boar’s one), so by killing the baby you are preventing this sentient life that already exists of his rich sentient future. Also a baby indeniably already feels pain, as much as the boar

Try telling that to the boar. It could be argued that the boar has a richer relationship to sentience due to it being less burdened by self reflection and intellect, therefore being more capable of living in the moment but i am actually on point with you about not eating the babies.

I think it has to do with the nature of empathy.

That's a great link you posted.

People die all the time, so when some Frenchmen had an OBE, I just shrugged my shoulders. Doesn't mean I applauded the terrorist or that a dead fellow person leaves me unmoved.

Whilst i salute your egalitarian approach to death and suffering i don't reckon that you wouldn't be moved by the identifiable victim effect that is alluded to in JustaTourists link.
In order to stay on topic if there were two dead bodies and one was that of a friend of yours and the other was Joe rogan and take into consideration for practical purposes that both bodies had the same amount of usable meat available. Seeing as you don't like Joe Rogan, which body would you be more likely to eat? I am betting that it would be Rogan because you have had less empathy for him than for your friend.