The Veg*nism Thread

The food chain says nothing about ethics.

Food is anything edible. You can eat sh*t, but just because you can eat it doesn't mean you should.

Prejudice.

Exactly.

It's a dangerous assumption founded on inconsistent logic and poor evidence.

Again, humanity is rooted in a history of RAPE, by the same logic it's unfair to point moral fingers at RAPISTS.

To me, there is very little difference from a baby and a vegetable, they are food.

THIS IS AN ARGUMENT COMPARISON, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

WHY? You've made a claim, so justify it.

WE DO, as Daniel and I have explained.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

I can get on board with all of that. Well said.

__________________
Letterboxd

Yes I know that Vicky. I shouldnt have listed those two as an example, but they came to mind easier than a stingray or a mullet.

Pescatarians aren't vegetarians. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

__________________

Originally Posted by jiraffejustin
I don't put animals on the same level of humans. I think it's silly and offensive to compare my joy of eating animals to your enjoyment of raping people.
Omnizoa - Prejudice.

Idiocy.

Originally Posted by TONGO
To me, there is very little difference from a fish and a vegetable, they are food
Omnizoa -To me, there is very little difference from a baby and a vegetable, they are food.

Idiocy.

Omnizoa - THIS IS AN ARGUMENT COMPARISON, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

You lost your argument. Whatever you say, trust me, it will be unheard. As unheard as I obviously have been to you.

Pescatarians? Ok thank you. No Im not gonna read his first post. : )

Then what does? As a scientific thinker I am only allowed to draw truths from observable evidence. My intelligenceand emotion must play no part in truth. What am I making my ethical position on foid consumption based on.


Saying mankind has eaten meat since the beginning is a poor assumption and has inconsistent logic but saying weare rooted in a history of rape proves a moral point about meat eating.

Someone isn't as good at debate as he thinks he is.

Then you admit, creationism is unfalsifiable.

The question was of arrogance. Scientists can and will concede they are wrong provided they are proven so, Creationists cannot be proven wrong and therefor will not concede to being wrong.

In-Group Bias.

Reductio Ad Absurdum.

TONGO, you've demonstrated that you're incapable of carrying this conversation. You fail to recognize tenable arguments and even worse, fail to recognize fallacies even after I've explained them to you.

You've ignored key points of the conversation and hypocritically argued past me.

I'm going to ignore you until you can address and concede the two points I've linked.

Morality has always been about well-being.

You value your own well-being, but you're not so selfish as to limit it to just yourself, yet you draw the line at species. This is an In-Group Bias.

You're arguing that it's natural. Pursuing sustenance is just as natural as pursuing sex, yet we accept that there are lines we should not cross in our pursuit of sex, but make no such distinction with our diets.

It's an irrefutable double standard.

oh blimey, I agree with challenging our own preconceptions certainly, but comparing uncurbed sexual desires that lead to illegal acts isn't quite in the same league as having an extra piece of cake. 'Needing' to eat meat isn't the same as 'needing' to rape someone. That's too much of an extreme comparison sorry.



thank you


re freegan

well I think we've all done that. Veganism is probably the cheapest diet if you're skint. I remember having just a few francs left and still a few days before I could leave Belgium back when I was young and too proud to ask for help. Two days eating porridge oats and water got me by.


ah ok. Just think it's an interesting subject. Probably one for a different thread.

But you can't draw moral truths from observable evidence, it would be what David Hume called a naturalistic fallacy. You can't derive an ought from an is.

The scientific truth in itself isn't good or bad, you need a norm (utilitarianism for instance) to judge the facts and to say which is good and which is bad. That is the basis of ethics.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

Science has the same problem of a beginning. Yet they build big expensive labs where they manipulate matter and then say" see told you so". Yeah, creationists are the only ones fighting the problem of arrogance.

We don't? How many cannibals do you know? How many cat and dog eaters? Citizen just made a whole post about his distinctions, ones I would largely agree with.

They're eaten fairly regularly in some other cultures.

They're both natural compulsions, christine. We know compulsions can have disastrous consequences. It's a fair comparison which is difficult to accept because it means attaching similarly extreme negative qualities to actions you already perform.

This a formal argument called Reductio Ad Absurdum.

In a similar manner you could say you don't find anything wrong with giving people gifts.

That seems perfectly acceptable on the surface, but if the gifts are guns and the recipients are trigger-happy lunatics, then you can see where the assertion that "all gifts are good" breaks down.

There is no such thing as "too extreme" of a comparison so long as it retains the logical operators unpinning both arguments.


I'll demonstrate the same argument with the desert island scenario:

You suggested that in the moment that it would be okay to kill and eat a deer to save our own life.

Logically then, you would also kill and eat a human baby to save your own life.

Take this baby:


Babies are the easiest example to make, everyone agrees that cruelty to babies is monstrous. But why?

Because they're cute? There are ugly humans we can eat.
Because they're young? There are old humans we can eat.
Because they're humans? That's In-Group Bias.

I completely disagree.

There are doubtlessly arrogant scientists, but you said the idea of evolution was arrogant.

Exactly, so what are you drawing the line at? Cats, dogs, and humans? That's entirely arbitrary.

70 percent of the world's vegetarians live in india

Did I? If so I didn't mean to. Anytime I used the word arrogamt it was in response to your assertion that people without the same moral principles as you are arrogant.


Is it? Or have we evolved to it.

Then you're completely wrong, You should read or google about the naturalistic fallacy, here's a quote from Hume that explains it.

''In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it''

I don't have a problem with vegans or vegetarians until they start putting themselves aggressively in that ''I don't eat meat'' frame.
I knew a girl who was not only vegan but I think she didn't even eat anything fried, however, she never told me numerous times that she's vegan and if you invite her over and cook something non-vegan, she is happy to try it.

I don't eat fish or most seafood for that matter but I never felt the need to find a trendy ''term'' for my eating habits.Also, I'm happy to try seafood/fish meal if whoever made it says I might enjoy it.

It's the people who walk into Starbucks and loudly announce to the server that they're vegan that everyone dislikes. Or laughs at.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I always wonder how Bizarre Foods remains on the air in this age of political correctness?
They often show animals being "dispatched" and butchered - not graphically, but they do show some aspects. I also wonder if the show ever has any problems from PETA. Lots of times they show people hunting, catching & killing local animals that are not under any FDA oversight.