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
Kill neither because you hold that the philosophical bases of veganism to be true? = logical EXTREMIST! — Txastopher
Out of curiosity, which came first in your case; not consuming animal products or being a vegan? — Txastopher
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
Also, by having close friendships with a few people, I am denying the boon of my friendship to the world's friendless. — Txastopher
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
Not consuming animal products is the definition of being Vegan. — chatterbears
We eat animals becuase we genetically need meat to survive. — SherlockH
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
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
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
Between this comment and the gems we're getting from xastopher, this thread continues on its epic journey of devolution. — Uber
But what do vegans think of hunters? — NasloxiehRorsxez
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
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
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
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
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
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. — 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. — chatterbears
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
neither the person who grows vegetables nor the person who kills wild animals, is who this thread is geared toward. — 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.