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. — Txastopher

This coming from the person who suggested we should just ignore theists so as to get rid of them?

I have no problem admitting that I don't think the middle ground is always the way to go.
I don't see a plausible middle ground between slavery and equal rights for humans.
I don't see a plausible middle ground between child abuse and parenting as best you can.
And many other examples...

If you draw a line and say "here, this is ethical enough" you have to be able to justify it with more than just labeling an even more ethical stance "extreme" without any real argument to back you up.

Kill neither because you hold that the philosophical bases of veganism to be true? = logical EXTREMIST! — Txastopher

My philosophical basis for Veganism is to be logically consistent within your ethical decisions and the justifications you use for those decisions. We can start here, why do you eat meat, Txastopher?

Out of curiosity, which came first in your case; not consuming animal products or being a vegan? — Txastopher

This is quite nonsensical. Not consuming animal products is the definition of being Vegan. That's like asking, "Which came first in your case; not having hair or being bald?"

This would depend on the strength of the analogy between humans and other animals, which, as has been shown multiple times on this thread, is far from adamantine. — Txastopher

Any opposition has not stated anything worth of substance. The only thing they have said is, "That comparison is bad and doesn't work." - It's easy to just ignorantly assert something without providing a proper rebuttal or counter-argument to support your assertion.

If you don't think Slavery has many similarities to factory farming, provide some counter-argument other than, "It's different."

Also, by having close friendships with a few people, I am denying the boon of my friendship to the world's friendless. — Txastopher

Conflating friendship possibility to the possibility of ending harm to the best you can, is absurd.

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.
— Txastopher

This coming from the person who suggested we should just ignore theists so as to get rid of them? — NKBJ

Can you unpack this a little, please?

It would be more justified to eat death row criminals and bodies donated after death. Animals are often bread just to be tortured, expirimented on, eaten and abused. Often those used for these type of purposes dont ever know any real happiness. Also Cannibilising other humans creates a medical disorders in humans. Thats going under the idea only non innocent creatures must become victems though. Children and animals by default are mostly pretty innocent. Also if you never commit a crime you are also very innocent. We eat animals becuase we genetically need meat to survive.

Not consuming animal products is the definition of being Vegan. — chatterbears

I hope not! I'm sure that many people would potentially like to give up animal products, but would hesitate if they thought they might be classed as vegans since the term is synonymous in so many circles with 'self-righteous dick'.

We eat animals becuase we genetically need meat to survive. — SherlockH

This is false.

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

There's my google doc with scientific/peer-reviewed evidence that is cited. There's a health and environmental tab if you need both.

I hope not! I'm sure that many people would potentially like to give up animal products, but would hesitate if they thought they might be classed as vegans since the term is synonymous in so many circles with 'self-righteous dick'. — Txastopher

This is similar to people who don't believe in God, but don't want to be classified as an "Atheist", because the term "Atheist" is synonymous in so many circles with 'devil' or 'immoral monster'. Just because people have a warped and/or incorrect view of a 'group label', doesn't mean people shouldn't use that label. If anything, that is a chance for us to educate them on what the 'group label' actually stands for and what it means.

I don't care if people think I am a 'self-righteous dick' for not wanting to cause animals any harm. They can be ignorant in their assumptions, just as the person who holds prejudice against an 'Atheist'.

Vegans, if I were to be on the point of killing a cow, would you kill me to save the cow?

Are you going to ignore my comments/questions and continue to ask your own? I asked why you eat meat.

I've already detailed my reasons and habits regarding meat eating upthread. Also, since just about everything you've produced on this thread is nonsense and the fact that you've produced so much of it, even responding to your very occasional bouts of semi-coherence would require an effort inversely proportional to the intellectual satifisfaction your subsequent response is likely to contain.

We eat animals becuase we genetically need meat to survive.
— SherlockH

This is false.

There's my google doc with scientific/peer-reviewed evidence that is cited. There's a health and environmental tab if you need both. — chatterbears

SherlockH, if you're genuinely interested in the health benefits of animal products in diet, it's probably best to look elsewhere than a cherry-picked selection curated by an avowed vegan.

if you're genuinely interested in the health benefits of animal products in diet, it's probably best to look elsewhere than a cherry-picked selection curated by an avowed vegan. — Txastopher

Again, it's funny to hear the opposition assert things without evidence. How about you provide him with the scientific peer-reviewed evidence (within the past 5 years) supporting your bald faced assertion. Because I provided multiple scientific sources from different countries that all point to the same thing. This is what a scientific consensus is. Sorry if you're new to scientific literature and journals.

Falsifying the laughable claim that "we eat animals because we genetically need meat to survive" does not require fancy studies. It literally just requires a single counterexample. I'll take Donald Watson, the pioneer of the word "vegan." He became a vegan at 32 and survived until 95.

Between this comment and the gems we're getting from xastopher, this thread continues on its epic journey of crazy.

Between this comment and the gems we're getting from xastopher, this thread continues on its epic journey of devolution. — Uber

I told you, even when supplying them with scientific studies that support a plant-based diet, people like Txastopher will still reject it and say I am cherry-picking evidence, lol. There's no winning with willfully ignorant people like Txastopher, who provide no evidence for their counter-claim, and just assert things.

When people make claims that reach a certain level of idiocy, scientific studies are not the appropriate response. Derision and humor work better.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I don't feel like reading through the entire thread..

But what do vegans think of hunters? You could argue that hunting a wild animal quickly and painlessly is ethically preferable to an animal that is very likely to die in a gruesome or painful manner. I don't know how statistically common it is for an animal to die due to their maximum age capacity, but even if that's the case I'd wager that's not a painless death.

But what do vegans think of hunters? — NasloxiehRorsxez

If there's an alternative, then I would say it is unnecessary. If it is a case, such as in an indigenous tribe, then hunting becomes more necessary, because they survive off the land.

I don't know how statistically common it is for an animal to die due to their maximum age capacity, but even if that's the case I'd wager that's not a painless death. — NasloxiehRorsxez

Put yourself in the shoes of an animal. Would you rather live a longer life, free from pain and suffering, and die a possibly painful death [such as cancer]? Or would you rather live a shorter life that is full of pain and suffering [horrible living conditions], followed by getting your throat slit?

For me it depends on the hunter. I have less of a problem with responsible hunters, especially those out in Montana, Wyoming, etc. where they have livestock to protect and feed, for example. Trophy hunters, though? Your typical deer hunter? Not so much. You'll be told that we have to hunt deer because otherwise the population will get out of hand, but the same people forget to tell you that people like them nearly exterminated other natural predators like bobcats and wolves, so the issue now is almost entirely man-made. This may be fine to some extent, however, if hunters hunted for food, but most don't - they hunt for sport. And even if we were to outlaw hunting, that wouldn't solve the industrial farming of livestock as it is today. Besides, and as I alluded to above, responsible hunters have more respect for animals than your typical grocery store shopper who doesn't think much about where their food comes from. It'd be more effective to change the latter meat consumer's mind first rather than the former's.

Also, just because it's brilliant and somewhat relevant.

You're saying that a person should not criticize each individual justification, and instead criticize all justifications as a whole. And explain to me how you would do this in these two scenarios:

"I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently man like, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men."

"I believe eating animals is okay because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently human like, they can't understand morality, they can't experience pain like we can."

I'd like you to criticize those two scenarios as a "whole", like you say you have to, and not criticize each reason itself [which apparently is erroneous]. — chatterbears

Have you lost the plot? What reason have I to do that? I have a reason to defend my position, not to criticise positions invented by you. I've already demonstrated the error in your form of argument. I refer you back to those previous replies. I can only lead a bear to water.

What you're basically saying is, "Dont isolate parts of my argument, because then my whole argument will crumble" - Sorry. I'll try my best to not attack you with logic and proper reasoning :) — chatterbears

What you're basically saying is, "I'm going to stick with the erroneous way and try to spin it as a success". That's it, call it "logic and proper reasoning". That'll do the trick. I'm sure nobody will notice if you substitute a label for the real thing.

This would depend on the strength of the analogy between humans and other animals, which, as has been shown multiple times on this thread, is far from adamantine. Indeed, it's hard enough to make an analogy between two humans. — Txastopher

Have you noticed that it's a pattern? At this stage, I wonder whether anyone here is in any doubt that he'll do anything other than presuppose such things in his "attacks".

Put yourself in the shoes of an animal. Would you rather live a longer life, free from pain and suffering, and die a possibly painful death [such as cancer]? Or would you rather live a shorter life that is full of pain and suffering [horrible living conditions], followed by getting your throat slit? — chatterbears

I hope no one endeavours to humour this false dilemma.

:lol:

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.

This thread is for people who actually care to discuss and explain their positions, not ignore all opposing positions without proper rebuttal. — chatterbears

Right, so where's your rebuttal to the very simple proposition I've stated three times now?

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.

Do you claim that no such intelligent, well-informed studies exist? Because we have direct evidence within this thread that they do, it would be incumbent upon you to show us how their authors are not qualified intelligent people.

Do you perhaps claim that it is not reasonable for a person to derive ethical commitments from intelligent, well-informed studies? In which case it is incumbent upon you to present your alternative ethics and prove that it is 'right'.

Or do you agree that certain specific types of meat-eating cause less harm that the equivalent vegetable farming for some measures of harm? In which case, for the sake of the environment you're clearly so passionate about, I would humbly ask that you direct your energies towards fighting the factory-farming system so clearly at fault here and stop pestering meat-eaters who have already agreed with you on that front.

Right, so where's your rebuttal to the very simple proposition I've stated three times now?

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

Link us multiple studies [not just one] that all point to the same conclusion. Scientific consensus doesn't come from one study, but from multiple sources that all agree with each other.

But even if the evidence pointed to what you are saying, there's an even better alternative. I could point to a random person who grows vegetables in their backyard, and say they cause less harm than your killed wild animal. But neither the person who grows vegetables nor the person who kills wild animals, is who this thread is geared toward. The overwhelming majority of meat eaters are the ones contributing to factory farms. They prefer convenience and pleasure over consideration and ethical consistency.

Also, many people on here will make comments, I will then respond, and they won't acknowledge or answer the question/s I have asked in my response. A good example of that is Txastopher, who likes to talk but never listens or responds to counter-arguments or rebuttals. I don't mind considering your evidence, but there are multiple conversations going on at once, and I saw you responding mostly to NKBJ.

As I said initially, post your scientific journals/research and I will take a look. As far as I can tell (unless I missed it somewhere), you haven't linked anything yet. All you have done is quoted some research, correct?

Link us multiple studies [not just one] that all point to the same conclusion. Scientific consensus doesn't come from one study, but from multiple sources that all agree with each other. — chatterbears

No, that's not how it works. This is a philosophy forum, not an agricultural one. You have yet to establish philosophically that an ethical position must be supported by the current consensus of scientists who happen to have investigated the subject. I can see an argument to say that supporting an ethical position based on empirical facts with whichno one agrees could be arguably irrational, but that's not the same as consensus.

I need only a single report from an expert who I can reasonably trust to be well-informed and no less biased than any other scientist. If such a report exists, then any ethical position which I find appealing for whatever reason may be reasonably supported by it. Your version of empiricism was rejected by the scientific community a long time ago and with very good reason. We no longer put all the evidence in a bucket and follow whatever it shows us. We arrive at falsifiable theories and continue with them until such time as they are falsified. My theory is that farming/hunting meat in the way I've described causes less harm overall, by my measure of harm, than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables. Many well-informed, intelligent scientists disagree with that conclusion, but at least one agrees with it, so the theory has not been falsified. Consensus doesn't enter into it, we're not trying to establish what the case if probabilistically likely to be, we're supporting a particular ethical position, the two do not necessarily follow the same process.

The studies I'm using to defend this position I've already citied, Reijnders and Soret (2003), Rosi et al. (2017), and Davis (2003), all of which have been linked earlier in this thread, all of which conclude that some meat-eating diets cause less environmental harm than the equivalent vegan diets. But please don't waste your time looking them up to find points within them you could refute. It's irrelevant that you could refute points within those studies. So long as there exist intelligent experts who disagree with each other, there exists the necessity that one of them is wrong, if it is a necessary possibility that an intelligent expert is wrong then you have no way of knowing that it isn't you, no matter how intelligent or expert you think you are. That is the philosophical point that's relevant here.

I could point to a random person who grows vegetables in their backyard, and say they cause less harm than your killed wild animal. — chatterbears

Maybe you could. what does that prove? Only that the 'right' ethical choice varies depending on the circumstances and the facilities one has available to them. Very much not the claim you originally made.

neither the person who grows vegetables nor the person who kills wild animals, is who this thread is geared toward. — chatterbears

That's simply not true. If that were the case, the post would be entitled "Is it wrong to factory farm animals?" and I think you would have had considerably more agreement. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with your notion that animal farming is significantly in need of improving. If you want to aim the post at a particular type of meat-eater, then I suggest you don't open it with the statement to the effect that all meat eating is unethical.

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

I don't think so cause animals eat each other all the time anyway. But meat consumption needs to be very low according to modern standards where physical work too is very low. Meat consumption can also lead to quick obesity and carries a real danger of various biological problems