'Should' is referring to the people who have been wronged, but are oblivious to it. Rather than be ignorant of this information, OP 'should' tell them so they are enlightened and can make a decision themselves based on this new information. It's also a contribution to dishonesty by the OP.

That sounds terrible. Do you still work there?

As I've pointed out to you seemingly hundreds of times, we cannot afford to let chickens and cows live unless we exploit them; for them it's either live and be exploited or never live at all. Is it better to live and be exploited than to never live at all? — VagabondSpectre

This is a false dichotomy. When black people were enslaved, were the only two options these:

1. Live and be exploited
2. Never live at all

Absolutely not. We can allow these animals to live and die naturally, but also STOP the breeding.

Not in the least. The kind of forage that many free-range cattle live off is ground that no crops can be grown upon. Field corn (which is what the U.S uses to feed its numerous amount of grain fed cows and chickens) is largely grown on land that is not high enough quality to grow vegan foods like sweet corn or other veg/fruit. — VagabondSpectre

47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being is being consumed by livestock. Feed this to humans instead of livestock, and the amount can drastically decrease (or kept the same and be fed to millions of people who starve).

Many farmers continue to raise livestock because it makes the most economic sense for them to do so, and some farms and ranches, by their very nature, can never be profitable without livestock. — VagabondSpectre

Which is why the public would demand plant-based products, in which I can almost guarantee you that these farmers (and the government) would figure out how to become profitable with plant-based products. They continue to profit from livestock, because there is a demand for it. And the government provides substantial subsidies for it.

We can gradually shift away from livestock production, but we cannot increase our fruit and veg production at arbitrarily fast rates (in order to grow and store enough of our own produce to be nutritionally self-sufficient, we would need massive innovations in indoor growing and refrigerated infrastructure out the wazoo). — VagabondSpectre

Why is this a problem? Figuring out the technicalities is the least of our problems. Actually putting in the effort to make the change is our worst problem.

Aside from being much more expensive, another problem with eliminating animal husbandry entirely is that planning vegan diets (especially a nutritionally adequate national supply) is more difficult than planning diets with some meat (because you need to consume a greater volume of vegan foods to gain the same levels of nutrition, meaning you need to plan what you eat more carefully to have well rounded nutrition). — VagabondSpectre

This is not true. Every diet needs planning, and a vast majority of people have a poor planned diet. You can be Vegan and eat french fries and oreos all day, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. It's just as easy to plan for a Vegan diet, as it would for any other diet. Saying you need to be more careful is an exaggeration. Have you seen the health of the US population?

Animal free agriculture is actually much less efficient than some animal husbandry for a lot of farms, while being logistically more complex in almost every way. — VagabondSpectre

Less efficient how? But even if that were the case, I am sure we could figure it out just fine. For how technologically advanced we are, you really don't think we could figure out how to change animal farms into plant farms efficiently?

If super-healthy and tasty vegan diets weren't so damn expensive, more people would be vegan; — VagabondSpectre

So people's taste pleasure of 5 minutes is worth more than the life of an innocent animal? Even if the food isn't as tasty right now, would you not rather eat a less tasty food, than contribute to animal torture and slaughter?

For starters, where are you going to get all the fertilizer once we no longer breed cows? — VagabondSpectre

There are plant-based fertilizers already. But again, I am sure we could figure this out. You're naming a bunch of technicalities that won't matter in the long run. We, as humans, are smart enough to figure out things. It's just a matter of how bad we want it, and how selfish we are willing to be.

If it's gradual and by consumer demand (assuming that's your view) you should be prepared for food to become much more expensive than it is right now, for the reasons I've mentioned, and for many more reasons which we'll never get into. — VagabondSpectre

Why would food be more expensive? Some of the cheapest food on the planet is plant-based. Grains, beans, vegetables, etc... But even if it were more expensive to become Vegan (which it is not), I would still pay MORE per meal, rather than pay less and contribute to unnecessary animal torture and slaughter.

If the farm animal was bred and raised for slaughter, and if that's the only way it ever could have existed in the first place, then yes. — VagabondSpectre

And white people thought the same thing about black people. People used God/Bible to condone slavery, and said things like "Black people were bred and raised to become slaves." - Basing your moral decisions on "if that's the only way it ever could have existed", is a very poor way to come to a conclusion. How about, causing any unnecessary pain and suffering, regardless of whether it could have existed in another way or not, is wrong. Just because farm animals were bred and raised for slaughter, doesn't mean they should be. And just because black people were raised for slavery for hundreds of years, doesn't mean they should have been.

On average vegans might be more healthy (especially as North America is over-weight on the whole) but I don't see evidence that vegan diets would benefit me. (I'm worried about losing weight, which is what I fear a vegan diet would cause). — VagabondSpectre

I gave you plenty of sources and real life examples (nuts / soy) that you can start with. If you actually did the research yourself, the evidence is clear. If you want to deny the evidence and demonstrable studies, that's up to you. But you might as well deny most of scientific peer reviewed study at that point.

It's absolutely logical for an omnivore to eat meat than things like grass. — ssu

I hope you realize that being an omnivore (as humans) is a choice. You do know that right? We choose to live in an omnivorous way, when we don't have to do that in order to survive. We can also choose to live on plant-based diets. And as far as logic goes, the science supports plant-based diets being healthier for our bodies and the environment. So wouldn't the logical conclusion be to adopt a plant-based diet?

Also, if you really think we have evolved to eat meat. Try killing an animal with your bare hands, with no tools or cooking utensils. And when you eat it, make sure it is uncooked and raw, just like an actual omnivore in nature would do.

Of course not! If I live in a city, it's still quite good to know basic survival skills like which berries or mushrooms you can pick and eat from the forest. I really don't need the skills for survival as I can buy everything from the supermarket (and be rather confident that nothing there is poisonous to me). I really like to go with my children to the forest, pick up mushrooms and make great food. — ssu

Did you read the question fully? The idea of survival is real, meaning someone would die without their needs being met. This includes things like food, water, and shelter. A want, is one step up in the order from needs and is simply something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain. There is no NEED to know which berries or mushrooms you can pick and eat when you have the option of a supermarket. So again, learning about which berries you can pick is not necessary for your survival. Unless you are trying to appeal to some rare situation that will probably never happen. At that point, you could say that learning how to fly an airplane is necessary for your survival, because one day you may get stuck in a situation where the only way to survive is to fly away in an airplane. This is sort of nonsensical and I think you should re-answer that first question. And I'll type it again.

Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival?

And you never answered the last question, which was, " Do you think we need to eat animals to survive? "

And this brings us to the philosophically important question: why do you think that we basically aren't part of nature?

Because it seems like obviously what we do is unnatural (kill animals) for you, but what other animals do (kill other animals) is natural. — ssu

When did I ever say we are not part of nature? What even gave you that impression. Humans are animals, just as dogs, sheep, cows and chickens are animals. We are all a part of nature. But breeding animals into existence, while torturing and slaughtering them on a mass scale, is not natural. Factory farms are not part of 'nature'.

Likely an animal of prey is slaughtered far more violently and suffers more long when it is killed by a pack of wolves than how their domesticated relatives meet their death in the industrialized slaughter house. — ssu

Actually no. At birth, female chickens are de-beaked (with no anesthetic). Male pigs get their testicles removed (with no anesthetic). Pigs get their teeth clipped (with no anesthetic). And those are just a few things. Most of these animals have horrible living conditions on a daily basis. Crammed in very small areas, where they eat and defecate in the same spot.

Not to mention, an animal of prey dies in the wild, naturally. Because other predators eat meat out of necessity, while we eat meat out of pleasure (for the taste). Also, these farm animals wouldn't even exist in the wild, as we have genetically modified them to be bigger and grow faster, so we can have more bang for our buck.

And the reason for us to farm animals is quite logical: there is so many of us. — ssu

It seems you haven't done much research on this topic. The amount of grain we grow for animals could feed hundreds of millions of people. We killed 50+ Billion animals every year, and a single cow eats far more grain every day than a human would. If we stopped animal agriculture, all the grain that is currently being used to feed these animals, could be used for us. We could wipe out most of world hunger.

What is so wrong in accepting that we as humans are omnivores? — ssu

We no longer need to eat animals to survive. And we really never did, as even our closest ancestors (gorillas, chimpanzees, etc) are 95% vegetarians (plants and fruits). Chimpanzees rely heavily on fruits and plants, but sometimes eat insects and smaller mammals. Similarly, we do not need meat at all to survive and thrive. Matter of fact, it is healthy for us and the environment, if we adopted a plant-based diet.

What is wrong in the idea that the human species, however advanced it has become and superior to other species, is still a species of and thus eats other fauna? — ssu

If we are 'superior' to other species, why do we cause so much harm and desctruction to each other, as well as the planet and animal life? A superior species would be more responsible and initiate actions that would benefit the planet, not diminish the life of it. I am superior to a dog, but that doesn't mean I am morally justified in torturing that dog, just because i can. Might does not make right.

What is wrong in the fact that life exists because one type of animals eat others and not only fauna eating flora? — ssu

Yes, animals eat other animals out of necessity. They are obligate carnivores who NEED to eat meat to survive. We are not obligate carnivores (or obligate omnivores) who need to eat meat to survive. As I said before, it is actually healthier for us and the planet if we stopped eating meat.

Why the idea that veganism is found to be so morally superior? — ssu

Because causing unnecessary pain and suffering is better than causing it, would you not agree? Read the last part of my initial post, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Or I will paste it here again:

- Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival?
- Do you think unnecessary actions that cause pain and/or suffering are wrong?
- Do you think Animal cruelty is wrong?
- Do you think we need to eat animals to survive?

Niether cows, nor chickens nor dogs are similar to us in term of sentience. Other great apes, dolphins, elephants, and perhaps many others have high degrees of sentience and intelligence, but they are still not on the level of homo-sapiens. — VagabondSpectre

The simple fact is, cows, chickens and pigs have sentience. Of course they do not have the same intelligence level as us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they do in fact have sentience. They can experience pain and pleasure, which is all you need when deciding whether or not an animal deserves moral consideration. Cows, chickens and pigs are deserving of moral consideration, at the most basic level. Which is, do they deserve to live and not be exploited? I think the clear answer here is yes.

We can't even afford to let them die off naturally as if we're to go vegan we need all available resources to ensure the success of that endeavor. (setting them loose would be much more cruel than euthanasia) — VagabondSpectre

It would be a slow gradual change. Breeding animals would decrease over time, while plant based foods would increase. It's not like farm animal would disappear overnight, but a gradual replacement of farm animals with plants, would be the most practical and logical option. For example, the more that the consumer demands Vegan foods, the more a company will supply them. As more and more consumers demand Vegan options, restaurants/stores will start replacing regular meats with Vegan 'meats'. Less farm animals would be bred and slaughtered, and animal farms would start to evolve into plant farms. Farmers would be able to keep their same job and land, but replacing it with vegetables/fruits/grains/etc.

Striking fear into farm animals is counter-productive though, and is not the same moral question as whether or not we're ethically justified to slaughter them. — VagabondSpectre

Are you ethically justified in slaughtering farm animals?

I suspect that I need to eat meat to have optimum health (and not because I like the taste). — VagabondSpectre

This is just scientifically false.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
- https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179
- https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Those are just a few studies (there are many more out there), that showcase a plant-based diet having more benefits to your health.

The fact is that I already eat a lot, and if I stop eating meat I'm going to have to increase the volume even higher as non-meat alternatives are not as protein/fat dense. — VagabondSpectre

Why are you trying to gain weight to begin with? Are you underweight? But even so, all this can be resolved with plant-based proteins. Tofu, tempeh, edamama, lentils, chickpeas, nuts, quinoa, chia seeds, beans, potatoes, etc... People who avoid animal products can eat balanced diets that support a healthy body and reduce the risks of some diseases.

And if you worried you aren't getting enough protein, you can use 100% Hemp Protein, which gives you around 15g of protein per 3 tbsp. I make smoothies with Hemp, that taste great. If you're worried about fat intake, eat 1 cup of Avocado, which can supply you with 21g of fat by itself. Other things that have high fats are things like walnuts and almonds. There are plenty of ways to supply yourself with the necessary fats and protein you need, but I think you haven't even tried to do the research. Correct me if I am wrong.

The reason why people send animals to slaughterhouses for their consumption is because it is beneficial to their survival and happiness. — VagabondSpectre

95% of people on this planet do not need to eat animals to survive. We have plant-based alternatives, and many of the poorest countries survive on things like grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, etc... Meat is typically more expensive in other countries compared to the US, because we mass produce it here and it gets fueld by subsidies.

Not possible. By building dwellings we displace and destroy multitudes of critters and creatures. Our roads disrupt, our fires and excrement pollutes; we cause harm and it's just a matter of choosing who or what will pay the price for our existence. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed. We are a selfish species in which we cause destruction when we build roads and homes for ourselves. But this desctruction comes as an indirect result, rather than a direct result when we kill animals for food.

The more sentient (and perhaps by extension, intelligent) a thing is, the more I tend to extend moral consideration toward that thing. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed. So if we acknowledge that a pig, cow and chicken has similar sentience to us and dogs, why do we slaughter them by the billions every year?

The farm animals we raise would need to be euthanized because we cannot afford to raise and care for them if they do not contribute to our own survival needs. — VagabondSpectre

Or we could stop breeding them into existence and let them die off naturally, since the farm animals we bred do not even exist in the wild.

No animal, human or otherwise, has the right to be free from fear. — VagabondSpectre

You are taking "right" in a too literal sense, as if there's a contract or document that comes with it. I can rephrase this simply to mean, does every sentient being deserve to live in a state of comfort, rather than a state of fear? Of course this isn't possible for every sentient being, because even some humans are born into slavery in some countries. But generally speaking, if we had the choice, as Humans, to strike fear or provide comfort, should we not provide comfort instead?

Yep. The world cannot go vegan (at least not yet). In other words, some people must eat meat to survive. — VagabondSpectre

What are you basing this on? The amount of people that need to rely on meat to survive, is incredibly trivial. But also, these questions are directed at you as well, but you seemed to have answered for the group, instead of for yourself. Do you, Vagabond, need to eat meat to survive?

I think the real question is, what is holding you back from revealing the truth to the people that should know? If someone was getting cheated on, irrespective of who it is (my mom, best friend, co-worker, random stranger), I wouldn't even hesitate to tell them.

Q: Do atheists have beliefs about the self and the universe which they follow with great devotion? — Marcus de Brun

Not in remotely the same way that religious people do. Atheists generally base their beliefs on scientific fact and research. And their beliefs can change over time as new information arises and science books change. Religious belief, which is based on ancient text, does NOT change. This is the main difference here.

Now if you come back on your own word, and now claim that god doesn't as a fact, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Now it may be the case that god's message isn't clear enough to you, but that doesn't mean god isn't clearing it up. God acts through people, so me attempting to explain how it works, if succesfull, is god clearing it up. — Tomseltje

Yet you haven't cleared it up at all. So apparently God does not act through people, since you weren't successful, correct? Also, if God acts through people, he's done a horrible job. Considering how many different religions and sects there have been throughout history. God really thinks the best way to communicate a message is through people that don't know how, rather than communicate it himself? It's like having a biologist send his 3 year old to explain evolution to a group of people. Either God doesn't exist, or he is really terrible at communicating things in a clear and concise manner.

You appear more concerned with some type of victory, not in some type of truth - I have no interest in continuing such a discussion — Rank Amateur

I appear more concerned with some type of clarity, while you appear more concerned with some type of diversion and deflection of responsibility for your lack of understanding.

That gives god the grand total of 0.0004 milliseconds to spend checking out each star system... — Devans99

lol....? I assume you're making a joke here.

He is allowing the baby time to evolve itself so it can get beyond its terrible two's. The terrible two's of human AI is messing up the supercomputer of nature. When it reaches three, it will smooth out and the computer will work better for all. — wellwisher

If this is God's thought process, he is unbelievably ignorant. God can inspire a book which he has wrote through prophets like Moses, and say things like don't eat shellfish or don't wear mixed fabrics? But he can't clarify what he means by specific verses which causes segregation between different religions and sects?

Why would he decide to confuse people with easily misunderstood 2,000 year old text, but then think it would be too confusing for humans to grasp his clarification on the cryptic book he wrote? What an insanely confused creator of the universe. Giving highly confusing information to a baby, but then think it would be more confusing to clarify the information he original gave out. God is a troll.

Even when scientists explain their own works in completely concise and accurate manner, not a lot of people would understand, much less a general audience. — FLUX23

So let's hypothetically say God came to our world once again to clear up the confusion and misinterpretation. There are still going to be millions of people misinterpreting his words. — FLUX23

If God cannot communicate to the humans he has created, in a concise and understood way, then he is not all-powerful. Also, people are not misinterpreting scientists, they are misunderstanding them. But the difference is, if you are not understanding a scientific principle correctly, you can actually go talk to them in person and get your confusion cleared up for you. So apparently scientists are more powerful than God is, because they can clear up misconceptions by continuously clarifying their position by giving talks or writing books, as well as initiating Q&A.

Depends. By "does not believe the person making the claim" do you mean the same as "believing the claim to be false"? If so, there is a burden of proof on that belief, as a new claim is made and each claim has a burden of proof on it. But if you mean the person questioning the claim has no belief either way regarding the claim, you're correct, there's no burden of proof on them. — BlueBanana

I never stated belief in the claim to be false. I originally stated, " I do not believe a God exists ". This is NOT the same as, " I believe NO God exists " - These are two different claims. Or you can look at it this way.

Claim: God exists
Me: I don't accept that claim as true.

This does not mean I accept that claim as false. It simply means I don't accept it as true. Similar to how you can believe the defendant is not-guilty, but that does not mean you believe the defendant is innocent. There just may not be enough evidence to support guilt, in the same way there is not enough evidence to support God's existence.

Try not to misrepresent my position next time, because you cause more confusion for people reading and replying to me. I'd suggest researching a little more on the burden of proof and how we address belief claims.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. — Bitter Crank

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? — chatterbears

Go right ahead and use the Bible to justify slavery, but tell us where in the Bible god commanded us to practice slavery. — Bitter Crank

You first say the Bible endorses slavery. The bible is word inspired by God, which means God endorses slavery. You say the Bible can't be used to justify it today. I asked why. You reply with "Go ahead and do it." - You didn't even answer my question of WHY. Why can't people use the Bible to justify slavery today?

Here are the verses you asked for.

Leviticus 25:44-46 - Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves
Exodus 21:4 - The children of slaves were born into slavery
Exodus 21:7-11 - Parents could sell their daughters into slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 - Beating your slaves, as long as they don't die within a day or two

Moses wrote Exodus and Leviticus. Moses was a prophet from God. So essentially, when you break it down, God told Moses to convey these commands and rules to everyone. And part of those commands were laws about slavery. How to own slaves, how to beat them, different rules for female slaves, etc...

There are also may verses in the New Testament about slavery, but that's not necessary. I gave you verses that command/endorse/condone slavery. So why can't people use the Bible (God's word) to justify slavery?

The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity. — Txastopher

Which is why I can start off the statement with "IF ". IF God exists, etc... I am not making claims about a God I believe exists. I am making claims about what other people believe about a God existing. And my claim would be, " IF God exists, why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? " - For the sake of argument, I leave out the " IF " part of my statement to save time arguing with believers. I'd rather argue about the illogical positions that believers hold in reference to God, rather than arguing the existence of God. There's no evidence to support a God's existence, so arguing that is a waste of time.

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. — chatterbears

Yes it does. It's simultaneously on both of you. Your claim offers no new information so we simply don't know whether you have an invisible pet dragon. Drawing conclusions from the existence of burden of proof or from that someone, despite the burden of proof being on them, doesn't provide any proof, is argumentum ad ignorantiam. — BlueBanana

What are you talking about? Explain to me how the burden of proof rests on the person who does not believe the person making the claim. You seem to not understand the burden of proof and where it rests. It rests on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept the claim as true.

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess! — Txastopher

What are you even saying? Just because God commands something, does not mean it is correct or moral. What qualities about God am I sure about?

Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands, which suggests that you are either even more all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving than god; a logical impossibility, or that you have grandiose delusions, or that you are a bell-end. — Txastopher

Jesus Christ, you're horribly confused. There are two things here that you are conflating.

1. God's actual commands.
2. God's communication on what those commands are.

#1 is something no one is sure of, because they interpret #2 to mean thousands of different things. #2 is referencing the Bible. God communicated to humans through the Bible, yet everyone has a different interpretation of what God actually communicated. What "group" am I excluding myself from? You speaking in riddles, it's frustrating.

Than Pascal's wager becomes bet on God is and act accordingly with 100 % chance of eternal bliss - or bet of God is not - with 100% chance of eternal suffering - — Rank Amateur

Then you get into the problem of how stupid/naive God really would be, at that point. The all-knowing God, that knows our every thought, would be OK with people faking it, just to get to heaven? This sounds like a very petty God who cares more about superficial nonsense, rather than genuine thought. It would also be out of fear. People would think, "I am scared to go to hell, so I'll pretend to follow and worship this God so I can get to heaven." - That's just ridiculous.

Never mind - whatever you say — Rank Amateur

Instead of acknowledging your lack of education on the difference between belief and knowledge, you reply with "Never mind - whatever you say." - Really?

seems you need to clarify if you are an atheist as below, or an agnostic as above — Rank Amateur

Look up the terms yourself, or I can link you here: https://www.thoughtco.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

Agnostic/Gnostic are pertaining to knowledge. Atheist/Theist are pertaining to belief. Knowledge and belief are two separate things. So there are two separate questions.

Do you believe a God exists? [ Atheist or Theist ]
Do you know a God exists? [Agnostic or Gnostic ]

You can answer no to both, in which that would make you an Agnostic Atheist. You can answer yes to both, in which that would make you a Gnostic Theist. To give an easier explanation, let me use an analogy I have used before.

If I told you I have a pet monkey; and asked you, " Do you believe I have a pet monkey? " - You would either say yes or no. A different question would be to ask you, " Do you know I have a pet monkey? " - In our daily lives, we first need to believe something, before we can know it. So you may believe I have a pet monkey, but until you see evidence for that pet monkey, you wouldn't be able to say that you know I have a pet monkey. Once you see the monkey in person, your belief turns into knowledge. You would then be justified in saying you believe and know that I have a pet monkey. Now apply the same logic to belief in God.

If it made sense from a health perspective, I would be a vegan, but the dietary volume and expense that is required to satisfy my personal nutritional needs is beyond my ability to manage — VagabondSpectre

I don't believe that, as meat isn't some magical pill you can just take and fix everything with.

And if we all had the where-with-all to plan vegan diets and the time and money to pursue them, we would still have to face the increased cost as a society, which would be a detriment to the poorest classes and nations. — VagabondSpectre

Nonsense, you are assuming about things you can't know. You don't know wether I eat meat, nor where I would get it from if I did. — Tomseltje

Why is why I asked...

Fishing for an oppertunity to claim the moral highground again? A very see through and disingenious tactic mr chatterbears. You obviously have great troubles separating a philosophical discussion from a personal attack. Asking irrelevant personal questions while refusing to answer general questions that are directly related to the topic. — Tomseltje

The deflection is real. Philosophical discussions can lead to questions about person's subjective actions. You think it is a personal attack, when I am using logic to display the hypocrisy in your argument. Point me to a general question I have refused to answer, and you better be specific. And ironically, you can't answer whether or not you eat meat because you know it will display your inconsistency.

You still haven't given an answer on what you mean when you say 'animals', so I'm still not sure what the topic is about, other than a shallow rant against the horrors in todays bioindustries. Now if that's all you wanted, you had better formulated the starting question as "is it wrong to commercially breed animals for consumption the way it is done now?" rather than "Is it wrong to eat animals?" — Tomseltje

Are you trolling, at this point? I have cleared up this idea multiple times throughout this thread. SENTIENT BEINGS, is what I am referring to. This includes humans and non-human animals. Also, both questions apply. Is it wrong to eat sentient beings? Yes. Is it wrong to factory farm them? Yes. Are people immoral for contributing to the industry of factory farming? Yes. This is a fairly simple conversation, that apparently confuses you to the point of not understanding what a sentient being is.

And just to continue pointing out the inconsistency. Almost everyone on this thread has stated that factory farming is wrong and immoral, yet almost everyone on this thread still eats meat. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

God already made the path of health, clear in terms of the natural world. He was not addressing the artificial world of medical prosthesis and revisionist history. — wellwisher

But shouldn't an all-knowing God understand that people in the future would have treatment to many diseases? Instead of saying 'Homosexual is punishable by death', God could have simply said, 'Homosexuality may be considered more unclean, so take precaution and be wary."

Seems we are in violent agreement. Well except for that "quite the opposite part" — Rank Amateur

You're still not making sense. What did you mean by "If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing". Please expand and explain this more in depth.

Wow! You really are dogmatic. So if God did put in an appearance, as per your request, you still wouldn't believe in him. — Txastopher

You should learn how to read. When/where did I write that I wouldn't believe in God if he made an appearance? I said, even if I believed/knew God exists, it doesn't necessarily mean I would follow his commands. I believe my mother exists, but I am not going to necessarily follow everything she tells me, especially if she told me to kill homosexuals.

What makes you think that anything god could say would not be open to convenient interpretations and provide yet more material for confirmation biases? — Txastopher

Because if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, He would know how to communicate in a way that would not allow for interpretation or confirmation bias. If the creator of the universe cannot communicate in a way that we all would be certain of what his message entails, maybe he isn't all that powerful. Also, even if someone still did somehow misunderstand his message, God could confront that specific individual and clear up their confusion, could he not?

If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this." — Tomseltje

From thousands of different religions, denominations within those religions, different churches within those denominations and different people who believer different things within those churches; it is clear that God has not made his message clear enough. My question is not formulated on assumption. It is formulated on fact. If you want to say that God DOES in fact clear up confusion between believers, you would need to provide evidence for that.

Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other. — Tomseltje

This is apparently evidence that God clears up genuine confusion between believers? Really?... So when I talk to my wife about an issue, and at the end of the conversation we better understand each other, that is apparently God revealing the true meaning of scripture to us?

If your claim is atheism - or there is no god. That claim in no way obligates the theist to show proof of God as argument against. If that is your claim the burden of proof for that claim rests with you. — Rank Amateur

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. The same applies here with Atheism. I don't believe that a God exists, and anyone who does believe a God exists, should provide evidence to support their claim. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in your God, just as you don't need to provide evidence for your lack of belief in my invisible pet dragon.

Secondly, religion is an act of man, not an act of God, and as such is subject to all the inherent errors that entails. — Rank Amateur

Shouldn't God have created a different system that wouldn't allow for errors by the beings he created?

lastly - the concept of a hidden God is well argued. The usual answer back is there is more value to us - the creature. What we consider valuable traits such as Faith, Charity, Chastity, Love of neighbor etc lose value if done on some guarantee of an eternal hereafter of bliss. It becomes a transaction , base. — Rank Amateur

Secular groups provide Charity and Love of neighbors, so those two are tied to a hidden God. Faith is an ill-defined term, and you would need to explain why it is valuable. Chastity is just a silly way that God/Man tries to control what you do in the bedroom. You'd also have to explain why chastity is valuable, rather than having safe responsible sex that is consensual.

When Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." he wasn't condoning/endorsing Caesar, he was simply acknowledging a fact: the Romans were running things in Israel, like it or not. — Bitter Crank

This is your interpretation, which still applies to my original post. Let's wait for God to come clear this up for us.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. — Bitter Crank

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? If the creator of the universe gave us a book (the Bible) to live by, and one of the commands is to own people as property, why wouldn't we adhere to his commands? Religious people believe that God has wrote the Bible through man, and that everything in the Bible is good and moral. When believers genuinely believe the things they read in the Bible, they would also believe it is morally acceptable to follow commands in the Bible, such as killing homosexuals. And if this wasn't God's actual message for humanity, I go back to my original question. Why doesn't God come down to clear up this confusion about what his book (the Bible) actually means or is supposed to mean?

Part of the reason, God allows various ways of interpreting the bible is so the faithful can save some through their inner spirit of truth. — wellwisher

This seems like a very dangerous path to truth. If God knows that leaving any room for interpretation can result in the deaths of millions, I would conclude that God is immoral and doesn't actually care about conveying his message properly to humanity.

Do you still eat meat? If so, then saying something is immoral is irrelevant if you are going to continue contributing to the industry that you claim is immoral. Talk is cheap. — chatterbears

Whether or not I eat meat is irrelevant to the argument at hand, in point of fact — VagabondSpectre

How convenient of an answer for you. Claim that factory farming is immoral, but refuse to answer whether or not you are continually contributing to it. I think you see your own hypocrisy here.

Nonsense, in the animal utopia farm I could also choose to wait with killing and eating the animal till it reaches old age, and it starts suffering from worn out joints. By killing the animal then I prevent it suffering alot of pain from walking about with worn out joints. You are conflating current practices you've witnessed with the suggested idea. — Tomseltje

Ok, sure. But until you have created that animal utopia, you would be immoral for eating meat as of right now. Because, by eating meat, you are contributing to the current conditions of how factory farms actually operate today. And this is a complete 180 from your utopia farm.

So. Do you eat meat?

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing. — Rank Amateur

Quite the opposite. Blaise Pascal said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. If God made himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager would be irrelevant and not applicable.

So what you're saying is that you want god to appear and clarify his wishes, but if he demands anything that you don't like, you won't do it. What do you need the clarification for? Either god is the ultimate moral authority or he isn't. If he is, you do what he says. If he isn't, his clarification is redundant. — Txastopher

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. One church interprets God's word in one way, while another church interprets God's word in another way. In the US, a vast majority of the population are God believers. Many of these people have used their religious beliefs to enact laws that discriminate against people, based on what they think God wants. Beliefs inform your actions, and if your beliefs aren't even accurate, maybe God should come down to clarify that for his believers. As stated before, this would cause much less confusion, much less harm and much less segregation among believers.

What mattered to the New Testament writers is that Jesus was the risen Christ, and that the job of the church was to continue the ministry of the Apostles. Period. — Bitter Crank

For clarification purposes, are you Christian? My question/statement was still not addressed. It blatantly clear that the old testament endorses slavery, such as in Exodus 21. And the new testament doesn't seem to have any problem with slavery as well. So as a general idea, the Bible condones/endorses slavery. Correct?

Answer the question? — Tomseltje

Your question was asking me why I assume he hasn't. I never assume he hasn't, I have stated I am not convinced he has. If you have proof/evidence that he has, please provide it. You claim he has, so I asked for an example.

Who is not a follower now? Well everyone who is not an idiot is, but is there any choice now? Does it have any value? Is it paradise or prison? Do your 80 years, get your ticket punched. Are you still a human being with any kind of free will? Does your acts of kindness even matter now, if there is no choice not to. — Rank Amateur

I don't understand what this has anything to do with what I said. If God cleared up the confusion in the Bible from believers interpreting it differently, why would that violate anyone's free will?

Maybe you are think of Paul: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5 — Bitter Crank

Either way, the New Testament condones slavery. Correct?

In the end you'll end up with people like in the OP who don't see a way out of the predicament and endorse damn near everything. — Buxtebuddha

Agreed.

Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen. — Tomseltje

Give an example of this?

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind? — Txastopher

I would then have the proper knowledge as to what he (God) means. And anyone who goes against that, would clearly be wrong in how they interpret his message. I wouldn't follow God's commands, because I don't want harm anyone. But if he came and cleared up all this confusion between religions, at least we wouldn't have religious people fighting with each other on what they think God says. It would create a better world overall, and much less conflict between religious groups. Religion would become 1 True religion, instead of thousands of interpretive ones.

I've stated that factory farming standards are immoral in one my earliest posts in this thread... — VagabondSpectre

Do you still eat meat? If so, then saying something is immoral is irrelevant if you are going to continue contributing to the industry that you claim is immoral. Talk is cheap.

But just to clarify, if I ethically raise chickens and goats in my animal utopia where they are handled with compassion, would you object to me consuming them? Unless I consume or sell these animals (which have not been tortured at all or suffered unnecessarily) the whole operation will have to cease. Do you argue that I would be morally obligated to do so? — VagabondSpectre

Your animal utopia scenario would be vastly better by an inconceivable margin. But the treatment of these animals is only one piece of the puzzle. They would still lose the right to life. It's the concept of being killed for exploitation, which is immoral. I'd assume if you had the choice to live in an animal utopia, where you're guaranteed to die at the hand of another, depending on when your owner feels hungry and ready to kill you, or the choice to live how you do now, which would you choose? In your current life, you can make decisions that will allow you to live longer, or maybe live shorter. In the animal utopia farm, there's no decision any animal could make that would allow them to live longer. They would all die whenever they become useless to the person exploiting them for food. Such as, a hen that can not longer lay eggs. That hen becomes useless, so off she goes to get her throat slit.

Nice article. Do you have the original webpage for this article, or is it only linked to the PDF?

1. Live a longer life in a protected habitat free from predators, which is large enough to live in comfortably, has food provided, where you are handled by compassionate keepers, live happily, but must one day be humanely slaughtered. — VagabondSpectre

Can you be more inaccurate? The percentage of factory farms that hold to these standards, are probably less than 1%. You know very well I was referring to the overwhelming majority of 99%, in which factory farms operate. Until factory farms operate in this so-called utopia of living comfortably and being handled by compassionate keepers, buying meat is contributing to the torture of these animals. So you want to talk about false dichotomies, you're portrayal of the current reality is way far off compared to mine.

What kind of clarification would you accept? — Txastopher

Enough clarification to not allow different people to interpret things differently.

Look, if the Jesus couldn't adequately clarify things, (and Jesus was God)... well, there you have it. — Bitter Crank

Jesus seemed to make things worse. Telling slaves to obey their masters, which seems to be an indirect condoning of slavery. If he did not condone it, he would have said, "Masters, free all of your slaves"

I asked Him about this ages ago, and He explained it like this: "Life would be very dull if all the answers were given in advance, like a crossword puzzle that's already filled in." Thus saith the Lord. — unenlightened

Nobody wants all the answers. I want clarification for the word he has presented as the most meaningful doctrine of all time. It would be like a crossword puzzle without any indication of what to fill the puzzle with. It would be like a crossword puzzle saying, " #1 Across is 9jfj093k90f09k290kkf0 " - When a passage can be interpreted in an endless amount of ways, the understanding of that passage becomes irrelevant. Because it is then about who has the right interpretation, rather than who has the correct message and who lives by the correct message. Because if God gave us the correct message, we still don't necessarily have to abide by his message. But at least we would know what he actually meant and wants us to live by. Right now, we just have millions of believers who form different religions and sects based on what they think God means.

Is it a better world if God came on the evening news - stopped the world spinning for an hour and cleared up all the confusions ?

Do we become a world of saints, or a world of sheep? — Rank Amateur

We become a world of informed people. As I stated before, just because God clears up what he really meant by his message, doesn't mean people would follow him. Satan is a perfect example of this, as Satan had more evidence than we ever would of God's existence, as well as God's plan and God's wants. Yet Satan still went against what God told him, and is now neither a saint or a sheep.

Some might argue he isnt real enough to do so. — SherlockH

If God is real, he either doesn't care about spreading his message in the most accurate and well-received way as possible. Or, he plays favorites and only reveals his true message to certain people of specific religions and denominations.

It's not psychotic to realize that chickens and sheep and cows cannot survive indefinitely in the wild. Chickens will die off rather quickly, the sheep might not last a season un-sheared, and the cows will eventually be taken by coyotes, wolves, disease, and the elements. — VagabondSpectre

Nobody said anything about surviving indefinitely. Let me give you two scenarios.

1. Live in a confined area 99% of your life. That area is where you urinate, defecate and also eat from. You're handled aggressively from birth, with constant pain and discomfort. You're also tortured from time to time, and then abruptly hauled off to get your throat slit or put into a gas chamber.

2. Live out in the wild with a right to life and liberty. You're free from oppressive restrictions imposed by an external authority. You still must live with the dangers of predators and/or disease, but you may do so freely.

To say you'd rather live "safe", free from predators, in which the 1st situation would be more appealing, is absurdly dishonest. If anybody had a choice between those two scenarios, they would only pick #1 if they were masochistic and did not desire a life of liberty. The 2nd scenario has a probability of death from predators and/or disease, but it is not 100% guaranteed. And while you live out that probability, you are not completely oppressed without the ability to exercise your free-will.

What we do to animals is absolutely disgusting and ridiculous, just to get taste pleasure from a hamburger. Animals constantly get eaten by other predators all the time out in the wild, but I can guarantee they [and you] would prefer a life in the wild, than life as a factory farmed animal.

If I treated animals like I treated humans then your point would stand, but I cannot yet afford to — VagabondSpectre

Why? You then rattle on about the general requirements needed by others (not yourself). Why can you not yet afford to?

when every child is vaccinated and has a well planned, supplement included plant-based diet, then we can afford to let our farm animals die of natural causes out of charity — VagabondSpectre

Do you not realize that almost every child AND adult do NOT have a well-planned diet that includes meat and dairy? If most people had a well-planned diet, then your point would stand, but every type of diet needs to be well-planned. And we currently don't have that right now, even with diets including meat. And most deficiencies found in humans are NOT because of a plant-based diet. They are actually found in meat eaters.

Also, do we let our current pets, such as dogs & cats die of natural causes out of charity? To say you will let something live naturally out of charity, is slightly psychopathic.

There are yet hard thermodynamic requirements for the earth's 7.6 billion humans, and it's not our fault that we have not yet freed ourselves from the food-chains of evolution. Animal husbandry is still too significant a part of even first world agricultural food production to do away with it over-night. — VagabondSpectre

If it is not our fault, who's fault is it? It doesn't matter if something is a significant part of a society. If it is more detrimental than beneficial, we should change it. We can't even get people to acknowledge that it is detrimental, let alone even glance at the idea that we should change it.

I've done research, I've tried various diets, and I've known plenty of successful and failed vegans. If you're going to just refer me to a dietician I'm not sure we can have a discussion. — VagabondSpectre

You may have done research, but did you do the proper research that would allow you to get the adequate vitamins and levels you need to be healthy? Have you tried to become Vegan for a month or two and then initiated a blood test to check your levels to see if you have any deficiencies? Have you then corrected those deficiencies by eating more of what you need to correct them? Or possibly tried taking supplements?

Also, saying you've known plenty of unsuccessful Vegans is a non sequitur. There more unsuccessful meat eaters than there are unsuccessful Vegans. You act as if people who eat meat are generally healthier and are more successful at planning their diet. That's absurd, and the data shows the opposite. That even the best well-planned diet that includes meat is less healthy than a well-planned diet that only includes plant-based products. But that is also the entire point, the idea of well-planning. You can be entirely unhealthy and unsuccessful as a Vegan if you do not plan correctly and eat the proper foods. French fries and Oreos are Vegan, yet I wouldn't suggest including those into your daily consumption routine.

I know vegans who are less healthy than they were on an omnivorous diet. Are they just doing it wrong? — VagabondSpectre

Yes. This is the equivalent of saying, "I've known non-smokers who were less healthy than they were when they were smoking. Are they just doing it wrong?" - It is a known fact that eating a plant-based diet is more healthy than an omnivorous diet. Here are a few points of reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/ - We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity.

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179 - British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals/meal-planning-for-vegetarians/ - People with diabetes can choose to follow this type of vegetarian diet (VEGAN)

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/496S/4576707 - The former prejudices that vegetarianism leads to malnutrition were replaced by scientific evidence showing that vegetarian nutrition reduces the risk of most contemporary diseases.

We may consume too much meat, but converting all that pastureland into farmland (and then somehow fertilizing it without cow-shit) is actually likely more expensive than the vegan dieticians let on. — VagabondSpectre

Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. To produce a day’s food for one meat-eater takes over 4,000 gallons; for a lacto-ovo vegetarian, only 1200 gallons; for a vegan, only 300 gallons.

And regarding crops, using land to grow crops for animals is vastly inefficient. It takes almost 20 times less land to feed someone on a plant-based (vegan) diet than it does to feed a meat-eater since the crops are consumed directly instead of being used to feed animals. According to the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, it takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and in the United States alone, 56 million acres of land are used to grow feed for animals, while only 4 million acres are producing plants for humans to eat.

We could shop around for articles about nutrition and the economics of agriculture I suppose. I'm game for this but are you sure the scientific community has concluded in in these matters? — VagabondSpectre

Most of the research is in my Google Doc, which I already linked you in my past response. Feel free to do your own research, because it is out there, just as the evidence for evolution is out there.

eating meat is a part of who I am. I'm a part of the food chain; it's why I have incisors. — VagabondSpectre

The Hippo and Gorilla have incisors/fangs. Does this make them meat eaters? No, because they are Herbivores.

If I was under-nourished, meat would indeed be a luxury, one that would improve my health. — VagabondSpectre

Meat isn't some magical pill that fixes people who are malnourished. Again, look up the studies yourself, or you can refer to the ones I have posted for you.

I would be happy to offer sources if you expect them. — VagabondSpectre

Yes please.

Plant-based diets can yield long-term health benefits but only when they're very well planned, and there isn't enough kale for all of us — VagabondSpectre

As I said before, all diets (including omnivorous ones) need to be well-planned. And saying there isn't enough kale for all of us, is completely irrelevant and inaccurate.

Is natural suffering fine because it's natural? — VagabondSpectre

It's not "fine", but it is better. Would you rather suffer from a disease (that is possibly curable), or have someone factory farm you, torture you, and then slit your throat?

I would wager that it would be better to be born, live, and suffer, than to have never been born at all. — VagabondSpectre

So you're telling me that it is better to be born into torture and slaughter, than to not be born at all? That's just ridiculous, and you fundamentally know it. If you were given the choice to live again after this life, and the choice was to live as a factory farmed animal or not live at all, to say you would choose the factory farmed animal life is dishonest and absurd.

All humans will eventually be killed by something, and we have the exquisite torture of knowing, so should we stop breeding? — VagabondSpectre

This is irrelevant. I am referring to causing unnecessary pain. We are all going to die some day by something, but in the meantime, it would be best to avoid causing each other (and other animals) unnecessary harm. Such as, going around and raping people. By your logic, we are all going to die any way, so should we all be okay with rape?

Why can't you find what I was referring to? Just go back to the comments and look at the quotes above them. It isn't difficult. Do you have some kind of disability which would make that unusually difficult? — Sapientia

Do you have some kind of disability that makes it unusually difficult to answer a simple question I have asked you? I respond to a vast number of questions and comments constantly, in which I also ask a vast number of questions and make statements in response to other people. I asked you to clarify what question I asked that you deemed as "rhetorical". Answer the question, or go away.

This is also why I told you to debate me over voice chat, because you are continuing to do what I said you do. Which is, ignore questions and clarification statements. I wouldn't let you dodge so easily over voice, which is why you wouldn't dare to debate me outside of text.

I don't think I could maintain my health if I did not eat meat... — VagabondSpectre

Based on what standard. Have you done the necessary research? Have you talked to a dietician? Have you asked for help from Vegans who have lived healthy for years?

We got where we are by exploiting animals (cooking and eating animal meat is likely what permitted some of the evolutionarily recent improvements to homo-sapien brains) and globally we're not quite ready to give them up. — VagabondSpectre

We can live healthier [for ourselves and the environment] if we adopt a plant-based diet. Whether or not the world is willing to give up a tradition or societal norm, is irrelevant to the facts.

Anyone living an aboriginal way of life eats meat out of necessity; plants don't have the energy/protein density of meat and it's hard as fuck to survive as an indigenous vegan (they all died). There is no argument to be made against meat eating in a traditional way of life.... — VagabondSpectre

Yet you are not in the position of an indigenous tribesman, so there's no need to compare yourself to them. Some Indigenous groups may have to eat meat because it is necessary for survival, but they also lack the education/awareness of animal replacements. You are not in that position, this is an irrelevant point.

If these third world countries did not utilize animal husbandry they would almost certainly be unable to produce a bountiful and diverse enough vegetable diet to keep their already under-nourished populations healthy. — VagabondSpectre

Are you in a third world country? Probably not. But even so, most places "meat" is considered a luxury. Corn, rice, soy, grains, fruits, vegetables are much more accessible than animal products.

Maybe I could, but it would be at great expense to me and if I'm honest I worry such a radical change to my diet could lead to a radical change in my health. — VagabondSpectre

Again, as I intially stated. Have you consulted with a professional? Talked to other Vegans who have been healthy for years? Talked to Vegans who have a similar condition as you do in regards to metabolism? Talked to a dietician?

I didn't actually choose to be a meat eater, I was born with canines, and asking me to change smacks of sacrifice. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is definitely something we need to mitigate in the first world but we just don't know enough about diet and nutrition to eliminate meat from all of our diets. Vegans are guinea pigs. — VagabondSpectre

This is a complete dismissal of the current scientific consensus. We know as much about plant-based diets than we do about evolution by natural selection, or whether or not the earth is flat. I'll post some scientific journals for you in my Google Doc, since you seem to be unaware of the scientific research.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Furthermore, abstaining from hunting and consuming animals, or raising them, either leads to animal suffering anyway, or animal genocide. Human hunting is a natural part of a balanced ecosystem, and while over-hunting is bad, under-hunting can be just as bad or worse in destroying bio-diversity. Without farms that pay for themselves we must euthanize all those species (cows, pigs, chickens) which can no longer take care of themselves in a natural environment. — VagabondSpectre

Here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

Look up Gaverick Matheny's reponse to Steven Davis in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. This idea was refuted back in 2003.

Also. We would stop breeding animals into existence, while selling the majority [that are left over] for food, and keeping the rest in an animal sanctuary.

Killing the deer saves the mouse and gives purpose to the wolf. — VagabondSpectre

Killing deer in the wild is not comparable to breeding animals into existence, torturing them and then slaughtering them. Such as how they do it in factory farms.

We would be foolish to think that we have effective decision making power when it comes to what's best for nature; — VagabondSpectre

But apparently we aren't foolish when we make the effective decision to use our power to breed animals into existence and torture them and kill them by the billions? Not to mention all the harm we do to sea life as well.

What exact question [and be specific] is a rhetorical question? And if I already know the answer, is the answer that I know the same answer you know? If not, is the answer that has been presented to me, backed by facts and logic? — chatterbears

Do you deny that those questions of yours which I quoted only moments ago and can be easily found were rhetorical? If so, then why were you asking them? I don't see the need to genuinely ask those questions, unless you're so far gone that you can no longer even contemplate matters from a different perspective. — Sapientia

This is the same problem I've had with you and Txastopher. You never answer questions. I ask you to clarify something, and you just repeat yourself. I asked to clarify what exact question that you are referring to that you claim is rhetorical, and you don't answer. Are you actually incapable of answering other people's questions?

This is a public discussion and I am at liberty to comment on anything you say here. If you wanted a private one-on-one discussion, then you're doing it wrong. — Sapientia

If you want to comment and jump in to ask about comments I made out of context you don't understand, then you're the one who is doing it wrong.

But that doesn't address my comment. My comment was picking up on your faux questioning which is really just rhetorical. You're asking questions which you already know the answer to, which is superficial. You aren't seeking knowledge, you just don't like the answer. — Sapientia

What exact question [and be specific] is a rhetorical question? And if I already know the answer, is the answer that I know the same answer you know? If not, is the answer that has been presented to me, backed by facts and logic?

Alternatively, just continue to eat what you feel you should be eating, and let others do the same. — Txastopher

Other people's actions have an impact on the world around us. You don't live in a vacuum, as your actions and beliefs will also affect the lives of other people. Eating animal products causes more harm to the environment (which also affects other people, not just you), rather than eating a plant-based diet. To suggest "Let others live how they feel they should live", is completely ignorant to the harm that can come from that type of mindset.

The problem here is not the vegan diet, the problem is vegan self-righteousness. — Txastopher

The problem here is the meat eater's blatant disregard for the harm that animal products cause. Not just to the environment or the health of humans, but also the animals themselves. Would you call the activists in favor of the prohibition of slavery 200 years ago, an act of self-righteousness? Vegans are trying to minimize the harm and suffering, just as slavery opposition was trying to do the same. If you want to equate that to self-righteousness, that's your problem.

At some point, a vegan on this thread claimed that veganism is the sole logical conclusion of ethical thinking on diet. Well, it's been shown in multiple ways that this is a false claim. — Txastopher

It's a false claim that all the scientific peer reviewed journals point to the same data of a plant-based diet is the least harmful to the environment, our health and the animal's welfare? To state it is a false claim, is to state that scientific evidence is not valid, which it's complete nonsense.

But if you're not referring to the scientific portion, and strictly the philosophical part of animal ethics, you can get to Veganism by logical consistency.

Feel free to take this consistency test I made, and tell me your results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1157oWUs6KYeRAKATUEKisl6LsGvEATYfc_OQeZN87vE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm going to duck out of this thread now. I don't think I have anything more to say on the subject. — Txastopher

Not surprised. See ya.

Btw. The last time I responded to you was on page 32, about a week ago. And then you randomly come in, and respond to something I said to other people.

This is what I last said to you:

To both of you, since you're so humored by how unreasonable Vegans are; how about you debate me, live on stream. You can show thousands of people how flawed and fallacious my argumentation is, since it is apparently equivalent to that of a Jehovah Witness. It should be easy for both of you, right? And we can let the audience be the judge. And if either of you respond with some excuse, such as "It would be a waste of time.", then you're full of hot air.

This thread is for people who actually care to discuss and explain their positions, not ignore all opposing positions without proper rebuttal. I'd love to talk to either of you, or both at once, over voice chat. That way, you can't constantly ignore questions and comments without proper responses, followed by ad hominem. And if you're not willing to debate me over voice chat, get off this thread and go spout your nonproductive comments elsewhere. — chatterbears

You then reply with:

Lol, no thanks. I don't do voice chat. Here's good enough. — Sapientia

As I said to you before, it's pointless to talk to someone like you and Txastopher, because you ignore questions and comments made by the opposition. I asked you multiple times to clarify your position, in which you never did. I asked you to clarify how I was using a fallacy, in which you never did. All you said was something like, "I can only lead a bear to water." - It's not productive to converse with you. So I'd suggest you stop responding to me, unless you're actually willing to answer questions I have asked you over a week ago.