Thinking about what the moderators should do? Yeah, maybe I should not have bothered. But they are unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

Pictures of animals in a "vegan ethics" thread is entirely relevant. You're just a snowflake and it's not the moderators' problem that you've a guilty conscience. It'll be okay, Sappy.

Pictures of animals in a "vegan ethics" thread is entirely relevant. — Buxtebuddha

Now that's funny! So I can just waltz into a discussion about, say, the ethics of smoking and pick comments at random to reply to by posting multiple pictures of lung cancer, impotence, bad teeth, and so on - even if it bears no relevance to the specific point that was being made?

On ya bike, Heister! :lol:

But you still argued that we ought to stop crimes--which flies in the face of your supposed moral nihilism. — NKBJ

I said that "crime" is natural and if we were to intervene in it it should be in a non moralistic way. As I have been saying in the thread "How can actions be right or wrong" I think you can have a best way to achieve an outcome (regardless of how dubious the outcome might be). So there are various methods to interfere with activity deemed criminal.

I have made it quite clear by now that I am drawing a distinction between things that happen in nature and things that are functional survival traits in the fabric of life.

There are specific contexts for trying to alter peoples behaviour and different motivations. We have personal motives for interfering in behaviour but I don't think we have any obligation. Also I don't think we can moralize about or interfere all harm. It is not inconsistent to chose which harm you feel the need to prevent.

lions are not moral agents — NKBJ

On what grounds are you calling someone a moral agent?

Pictures of animals in a "vegan ethics" thread is entirely relevant. You're just a snowflake and it's not the moderators' problem that you've a guilty conscience. It'll be okay, Sappy. — Buxtebuddha

Are you happy for us to post pictures of animals being eaten alive then? Are you happy for us to post images of mass drowning or starvation in nature etc?

Links would be sufficient.

Now that's funny! So I can just waltz into a discussion about the ethics of smoking and pick comments at random to reply with by posting multiple pictures of lung cancer, impotence, bad teeth, and so on - even if it bears no relevance to the specific point that was being made? — Sapientia

The fuck are you talking about? Petrichor's been in this thread from the beginning and has stayed on point throughout. You simply don't like the pictures and want them removed because you're too insecure to address them.

On ya bike, Heister! — Sapientia

Sure, and I'll leave you crashed in the ditch, laytuh beeitch.

No cow voluntarily walks into a knife merely for our pleasure. — NKBJ

Has a plant ever voluntary walked into your most merely for your pleasure? Nothing has a choice about whether it dies or not because that is inevitable.

We have to exploit nature to survive. As a depressed nihilist I know what it is like to be unhappy with the state of life an nature. It certainly is not Disneyland.

It is unfortunate but dead animals are part of the cycle of life and part of most organism nutrition.

The fuck are you talking about? — Buxtebuddha

:lol:

Petrichor's been in this thread from the beginning and has stayed on point throughout. You simply don't like the pictures and want them removed because you're too insecure to address them. — Buxtebuddha

That's a cute theory. Now, explain the relevance to the point that it was replying to.

Are you happy for us to post pictures of animals being eaten alive then? Are you happy for us to post images of mass drowning or starvation in nature etc?

Links would be sufficient. — Andrew4Handel

If a thread is about veganism, the ethics of veganism, animals, the rights and wrongs of using and eating animals, then pictures relating to these topics and many other subtopics are entirely relevant. If a thread is about drowning, starvation, or natural disasters, then pictures relating to those topics are also relevant.

That's a cute theory. Now, explain the relevance to the point that it was replying to. — Sapientia

As far as I can tell, his intention was to highlight the ability for animals to suffer. Pictures, in addition to the thousands and thousands of words that he has written in the thread, help to support his post. As I said before, you don't like the pictures, so you started crying about them.

As far as I can tell, his intention was to highlight the ability for animals to suffer. Pictures, in addition to the thousands and thousands of words that he has written in the thread, help to support his post. As I said before, you don't like the pictures, so you started crying about them. — Buxtebuddha

And like I said before, that's a cute theory, but you need to explain the relevance to the point that it was replying to. That his intention was to highlight the ability of animals to suffer does not explain the assumed relevance to the point that it was replying to, and that intention would fit the motive of an evangelical.

(Also "thousands and thousands": :lol: )

Yes, but you're still confusing them with what they're not, more specifically other animals, like chickens or pigs. I wouldn't treat humans like we do chickens or pigs, and I wouldn't treat chickens or pigs like we do humans, and there's nothing wrong about that.

Given that chickens and pigs are not like humans, it's a different argument. That they're useful to us, and can be farmed, is not to suggest the same of humans. — Sapientia

^

The above assertion was what he responded to with a post about use and suffering, about which pictures were relevant. You never even made an argument, so whatever "point" you've been whispering to me about still isn't coming through.

(Also "thousands and thousands": :lol: ) — Sapientia

Here, I'll put his shit in a word counter, give me a moment, sweetie.

The above assertion was what he responded to with a post about use and suffering, about which pictures were relevant. You never even made an argument, so whatever "point" you've been whispering to me about still isn't coming through. — Buxtebuddha

When are you going to explain the relevance to the point that was being made? How many replies is it going to have to take? That he responded with a post about use and suffering does not adequately explain the relevance. And besides, that can be done without splattering a post with propagandistic imagery in a superficial attempt to appeal to emotion and promote your agenda.

Also, I find it funny that you quote my argument, and then claim that I never even made one.

Just done, copy-pasted into a word counter: @petrichor has written 13,617 words and 75,135 characters so far in this thread. I think that qualifies as "thousands and thousands," but please, herr me red with talk of me missing the point again, :up:

When are you going to explain the relevance to the point that was being made? How many replies is it going to have to take? That he responded with a post about use and suffering does not adequately explain the relevance. — Sapientia

One can argue how they like. Petrichor read your post and responded to it accordingly. Whether or not you agree with what he posted is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not he is able to post pictures.

Don't see a reason to delete the pictures. Do see a reason to delete very personal insults. It's an emotive topic but let's at least emote on topic.

Just done, copy-pasted into a word counter: petrichor has written 13,617 words and 75,135 characters so far in this thread. I think that qualifies as "thousands and thousands," but please, herr me red with talk of me missing the point again, :up: — Buxtebuddha

That's impressive. I'll make sure he gets his medal.

One can argue how they like. Petrichor read your post and responded to it accordingly. Whether or not you agree with what he posted is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not he is able to post pictures. — Buxtebuddha

They sound like the words of someone who has begun to realise that they're fighting a losing battle. Yes, one can argue how they like - that's beside the point. Yes, he responded accordingly - in accordance with what one would expect from an evangelist, rather than in accordance with what one would expect from someone whose main concern is to stick to the point - that's the problem. And yes, whether or not I agree with what he posted is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not he is able to post pictures - which in turn is irrelevant to the point that I made.

That's impressive. I'll make sure he gets his medal. — Sapientia

You're utterly incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?

he responded accordingly - in accordance with what one would expect from an evangelical, rather than than in accordance with what one would expect from someone whose main concern is to stick to the point - that's the problem. — Sapientia

"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."

That's the relevant site guideline to which you have appealed. Now, since you know Petrichor's words so well, inside and out, please direct me to where he has stated that his opinion "is the only one worth having," and that him posting animal abuse photographs reflects that. Go on, I'll be waiting...but no, hold on...

I have a better idea. How about you retrace my foot up your arse? — Sapientia

There we go, I've saved you the time of getting out your white flag by retrieving it for you myself! I'm the nicest chap, I know. God bless me.

You're utterly incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you? — Buxtebuddha

When I'm wrong? Does not compute.

"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."

That's the relevant site guideline of which you have appealed to. Now, since you know Petrichor's words so well, inside and out, please direct me to where he has stated that his opinion "is the only one worth having," and that him posting animal abuse photographs reflects that. Go on, I'll be waiting...but no, hold on... — Buxtebuddha

First of all, he doesn't need to state that, so whether he has or he hasn't stated that - and he probably hasn't - I do not need to waste my time searching through his post history to find out. It doesn't have to be so explicit, and it likely isn't so explicit in most cases.

Secondly, as I think I've already made clear, posting multiple images of the type which are likely to elicit an emotional reaction to the benefit of the agenda that you support, in response to a specific intellectual point, which do not address that specific intellectual point, is something one would expect from an evangelist.

First of all, he doesn't need to state that, so whether he has or he hasn't stated that - and he probably hasn't - I do not need to waste my time searching through his post history to find out. — Sapientia

So you've got nothing, okay.

It doesn't have to be so explicit, and it likely isn't so explicit in most cases. — Sapientia

What does it have to be then? Whatever you suspect with a tin foil hat on?

Secondly, as I think I've already made clear, posting multiple images of the type which are likely to elicit an emotional reaction to the benefit of the agenda that you support, in response to a specific intellectual point, which do not address that specific intellectual point, is something one would expect from an evangelical. — Sapientia

Whenever you're in the wrong on this forum your first reaction has always been to say that the other is not properly addressing you, and so in the end the debate ends because you were threatened and chose to divert attention. You seem to be doing the same thing here by assuming the entirety of Petrichor's intentions. This is quite clearly wrong. That the mods have chosen to do nothing appears to validate that in some way.

So you've got nothing, okay. — Buxtebuddha

When the "something" is not required, the "nothing" will suffice.

What does it have to be then? — Buxtebuddha

Indicative of evangelism.

You seem to be doing the same thing here by assuming the entirety of Petrichor's intentions. — Buxtebuddha

His intentions are secondary. The primary objection is that it's irrelevant and misleading.

When the "something" is not required, the "nothing" will suffice. — Sapientia

Yeah, because you really follow that lingo, :chin:

Indicative of evangelism. — Sapientia

So, lemme try and get this straight, as Petrichor has written 13, 617 words, none of that was "indicative of evangelism," but as soon as he posted a couple of pictures, he ought to be taken out back and shot for evangelism? Please, Sappy, I think it is you who needs to leave along with your hurt butt. Your "point" the last page is pathetic and vacuous, give it a rest.

So, lemme try and get this straight, as Petrichor has written 13, 617 words, none of that was "indicative of evangelism," but as soon as he posted a couple of pictures, he ought to be taken out back and shot for evangelism? Please, Sappy, I think it is you who needs to leave along with your hurt butt. Your "point" the last page is pathetic and vacuous, give it a rest. — Buxtebuddha

I will help you get it straight, because I'm generous like that:

The part that was indicative of behaviour associated with evangelism was indicative of behaviour associated with evangelism for the reasons I've made clear, and the rest of the content, including most of those 13,617 words you bring up, are not relevant to this point.

Furthermore, as I've now made explicit, this point in relation to evangelism is secondary. So you're choosing to focus on a secondary point, and, moreover, you're addressing it in your usual manner which utilises ridiculous exaggeration, flippancy, and unnecessary personal commentary.

The first of these images of the pigs in wire cages has been used on the internet in a misleading way. This was a picture from China and the pigs were temporally in those cages awaiting transport to market.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pig-cage-photo/

Personally pictures of animals never move me in they way pictures of humans suffering do. But I think animal welfare can be improved with in the framework of meat eating.

Nice work. "Temporary cages used for the transportation of pigs gets me so mad!". It's funny too, as you can tell that, in that moment, they don't give a damn and are in no distress whatsoever.

My way of countering your red herrings is to disregard them. — Sapientia

You cannot call my arguments red herrings if you haven't read them--either you lied previously, or you are committing an argumentum abusi fallacia (falsely calling something a fallacy, which would be the case if you just toss the fallacy's name out there without knowing it to be true).

No one anywhere on the planet, in modern times, has kept a cow for the duration if its natural lifespan? There's not a single exception? Yeah right. That would be extremely unlikely. So, why should I believe that? — Sapientia

If you actually let a cow live it's entire natural lifespan, then you can't have killed it. If humans just let cows live and die according to their own biological timeline and then feel the need to pick the flesh of off their rotting corpses, I suppose I see no ethical problem in that (although, at this point in my life, I have serious aesthetic objections).

Even if a cow were to be raised humanely and treated nicely up until a day before it's natural death, it would still be wrong to then kill it. Just like you cannot kill the elderly lady next door a day before her natural demise. To do so is murder. Murder is not defined by how nice you were before death, or how long they could have lived after, or any of that: it's the intentional killing of another sentient and intelligent being who did nothing to deserve death and does not want death.

Did I make that argument? No. So why are you asking me that? — Sapientia

Because that's where your entire argument is headed: you're arguing against veganism partially on the basis of some hypothetical scenario that is not only wrong, but also just doesn't happen in the real world. You're gonna have to find other arguments to justify your hamburger.

You cannot call my arguments red herrings if you haven't read them--either you lied previously, or you are committing an argumentum abusi fallacia (falsely calling something a fallacy, which would be the case if you just toss the fallacy's name out there without knowing it to be true). — NKBJ

You're not very good at following what I say. You suggest that I haven't read your argumentative points, or that I've said or implied that I haven't, but that isn't the case. On the contrary, obviously I have read some of them. I just stopped doing so after a certain point because they were not relevant to the points that I was making to you, and because I lost patience with trying to get you to stay on point.

Even if a cow were to be raised humanely and treated nicely up until a day before it's natural death, it would still be wrong to then kill it. Just like you cannot kill the elderly lady next door a day before her natural demise. To do so is murder. Murder is not defined by how nice you were before death, or how long they could have lived after, or any of that: it's the intentional killing of another sentient and intelligent being who did nothing to deserve death and does not want death. — NKBJ

When you say that it doesn't want death, that's not the same as when you say that a human doesn't want death. There are different implications, or rather, there must be to make sense of what you're saying. What evidence is there that a cow can understand, contemplate or reflect on death? Or are you just speculating that it doesn't want death?

Anyway, regardless of whether or not it's wrong, it's useful and has benefits. Maybe that's more important to some people.

Because that's where your entire argument is headed: you're arguing against veganism partially on the basis of some hypothetical scenario that is not only wrong, but also just doesn't happen in the real world. You're gonna have to find other arguments to justify your hamburger. — NKBJ

No, my argument was not attempting to justify the treatment of the other 999,999 - which is, word for word, what you actually said, rather than what you're now saying.

My argument just pointed out an exception, which does indeed happen in the real world, given the likelihood of it. I thought that you had conceded that point, as you appeared to accept that the likelihood of it being otherwise would be extremely remote, and you haven't given me any reason to rethink this likelihood.

And I'm not trying to justify my eating of hamburgers. If you listened more, and characterised less, then you might have picked up on that. It is what it is, right or wrong, and I accept that. Either way, my behaviour remains more or less the same.

I don't think we should disregard our nature.

I don't think we should disregard our nature. — Andrew4Handel

That's a sweeping statement, don't you think?

I just stopped doing so after a certain point because they were not relevant to the points that I was making to you, and because I lost patience with trying to get you to stay on point. — Sapientia

Eh, you know what? Since you self-admittedly just ignore the arguments you don't like, and since you're also admitting to not actually being interested in the truth:

It is what it is — Sapientia

, I'm quite sure there is no longer a point to our conversation.

I'm quite sure there is no longer a point to our conversation. — NKBJ

It's worse than that, it's counterproductive, because you demonstrate time and again that you either can't accurately follow what I'm saying, or you're purposefully misrepresenting it.

So yes, let's end it.

In relation to what? I was just making a general point in relation to my opening post concerning how close to nature a behaviour is.