Don't we feel for those who are intellectually challenged. We don't go around mistreating people with disabilities do we? We do call severely brain damaged people ''vegetables'', right? Yet we extend our compassion to them. So, how far are ''vegetable'' humans from actual vegetables? — TheMadFool
No, because you are a vegan. The "all other studies" are going to be studies trying to prove veganism, just like Davis's was trying to prove meat eating. Its confirmation bias, we all have it. All we can say without bias is that there are arguments for either case presented by intelligent, well-informed experts. Therefore, no case is unequivocally correct from an ethical pont of view — Pseudonym
Yes, Davis's study. The mere existence of counter arguments does not render a study no longer evidence. — Pseudonym
None of these systems use land which could be used for growing arable crops, so if you don't eat these forms of meat you are directly requiring a greater quantity of land to be taken up with agriculture — Pseudonym
You insisted on the numbers when you assumed they worked in your favor. — NKBJ
I didn't argue against Davis' study. I used it to prove you wrong. — NKBJ
1. Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die
every year to provide products used in vegan diets.
2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
animals than the vegan model.
3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number
of field animals killed in different crop production systems.
4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems.
That model is not sustainable for feeding the entire world's population. — NKBJ
But I did look up sheep farming in the UK: — NKBJ
I want a world where HUMANS can minimize net harm that THEY cause — chatterbears
If you wouldn't justify raising a human needless for food, why would you justify it for an animal? — chatterbears
And to be consistent, should it follow that we can eat humans that contain a lower ability in thought, such as a mentally disabled person? — chatterbears
Show me where I claimed that you and Uber don't agree on the severity of harm. — Pseudonym
You calculated it to 15 times more harmful. Uber, kindly linked to a large number of studies, the first one of which calculates it to be only 1.5-2 times more harmful — Pseudonym
So a collection of bad reasoning, when put together, somehow creates a good whole reasoning? This makes no sense.
An argument can consistent of multiple justifications, but each justification needs to be valid in order to be part of the argument. Otherwise, the argument becomes flawed on some level. For example. I can say, "I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They have long hair, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men." All 3 of these justifications are completely invalid and have very poor reasoning. But according to you, if you put all 3 of these justifications (parts) together, it somehow makes the entire argument as a whole, a valid or correct one? And if someone objects to it, you accuse them of appealing to the fallacy of composition. — chatterbears
This is just completely false. You can't ignore facts about reality to feed your inconsistent position. Animals can experience mental distress, similar to how humans can. You think an animal is in a better mental state confined to a cage, or walking around in an open field? — chatterbears
Animals on typical organic and “free-range” farms often spend much of their time confined to crowded sheds or mud-filled pens, just as animals on conventional factory farms do. — chatterbears
Slaughter is a violation of the 'right to life'. — chatterbears
Are you admitting defeat? Appealing to personal gratification is probably the worst justification you have used so far. — chatterbears
I'm done responding to your statements, so don't quote me anymore. — chatterbears
But even with that, people throughout this thread have appealed to God or have stated things like “Animals feel pain in a different way than we do, so they should be treated differently.” — chatterbears
You: uber and nkbj disagree.
Me: no, we don't. *shows evidence*
You: I didn't say you disagreed!
Me: yes, you did *shows evidence*
You: uber and nkbj disagree.
Like I said, not worth my time. — NKBJ
But to compare that to plants, is a bit silly and slightly absurd. — chatterbears
Well it appears to be very much 'worth your time' as you keep responding. It's almost as if this one tiny thread is the only point you feel you can win on. — Pseudonym
Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound. — Pseudonym
However, what bothers me about vegan 'superlativism' is its intolerance, as shown on this thread, for anyone who doesn't go to the same extremes. And 'extreme' is the correct term here. — Txastopher
Could I do more? Yes, but at what point does it become life-denying self-sacrifice. I don't want to be an ascetic so, for me at least, it's pretty clear when to stop. — Txastopher
What do you think? — TheMadFool
The justification as a whole needs to be good enough. You can criticise the justification as a whole. That in itself is not a problem. But taking parts in isolation, which were not intended to be taken in isolation, is where you've gone wrong. If your reasoning for rejecting the justification as a whole is that each part when taken in isolation is insufficient, then your reasoning is erroneous. — Sapientia
If your reasoning for rejecting the justification as a whole is that each part when taken in isolation is insufficient, then your reasoning is erroneous. — Sapientia
Kill a dog? = Psychopath — chatterbears
Kill neither? = EXTREMIST ! — chatterbears
completely unrelated aspects of my posts than you are in actually discussing the issue. — Pseudonym
Were the people who supported the prohibition on slavery "extreme'? Would you have labeled them as 'intolerant' to anyone who still continued to own people as property? — chatterbears
Sorry that your indulgence gets in the way of being a compassionate human being. Not only is this an ignorant position, because it is clear that there are an endless amount of Vegan foods that you can also indulge in (French fries, pasta, etc). But it also shows your lack of empathy and consistency, that your 'taste pleasure' is more important than the lives you're willing to kill for it. — chatterbears
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.