But you already know the answer. — Sapientia

That comment was directly toward Baden, not you. So I am not sure why you're responding to a statement I made toward someone else.

Again, surely you know the answer. So, is this just rhetoric? — Sapientia

Yes, it seems it is just rhetoric. You just want to push the alternative that you judge as better. — Sapientia

Why do you think? It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for dogs as pets, and pigs as livestock. — Sapientia

All my statements were direct to Regi, not you. So again, I am not sure why you're responding to a statement I made toward someone else, as our conversation is not related to things you and I have talked about. If you want to have a discussion with me, respond to statements I have directly made toward you.

Also, to address your last comment. Just because there is a bigger market for something, based on the cultural/societal norm, doesn't mean that the market demand is morally acceptable. There was a bigger market for slave trading 300 years ago, but it would be ignorant to say "It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for blacks as slaves, and whites as friendly neighbors."

You keep pretending that all animals can feel pain, while plants can not and thus it's unethical to grow and kill animals for food but it's ok to do the same with plants and bacteria without providing any argument for this assumption. The biological evidence is clear and contradicting your assumptions on this, sure keep ignoring facts and pushing your dogmatic virtues, but please go to a preachers platform for that, If you want to make a philosophical argument, you ought to adress the objections I made rather than ignore them. — Tomseltje

I never claimed that all animals can feel pain. I stated that all sentient animals can feel pain, which is what the science supports. And the science all supports the idea that a life-form such as a plant or microorganism [such as bacteria], does not have a central-nervous system or a brain to process pain. If you want to state that you don't need a brain or a nervous system to process pain, then you need to provide scientific evidence to support that ridiculous claim.

I want to know why you put the line at sentient beings rather than further down the line at plants. I assume most don't because 1) they haven't even considered plants and and/or 2) if they have they find it completely impractical and a cognitive dissonance forms in order to feel fine with eating plant life. — yatagarasu

Did you ignore my entire post/response to you?

A plant cannot "want", as it doesn't have a brain to perceive anything. A plant "wants" to survive in the same way bacteria "wants" to survive, yet neither of them have a brain or central nervous system. Neither can feel pain, produce thoughts, have emotions, etc... A nervous system is only one part of the equation, as something also needs a brain to perceive pain or have thoughts and emotions. — chatterbears

Again, as I said to Tomseltje, if you believe that plants can feel pain, please provide the scientific research to support that.

I mainly want to know because I feel like "sentient beings are a no-no line of argument" to be very exclusive and does not respect life as much as it should. We are the arbiters of who lives and who dies. The plant says, "I'm alive too!" and gets shut down because it isn't "sentient" enough. Why does sentience only give you the right to live? Many philosophies saw this as a hypocrisy and choose not to ignore those organisms as well. — yatagarasu

So are you saying we should eat nothing and just die? Since plants apparently need the same moral consideration as sentient animals, we shouldn't eat plants either, correct? Therefore, we would be left with eating nothing; in which we would starve, then die.

As has repeatedly been explained here, this is a problem for vegans, not for me. I don't claim that sentience is the guiding principle of a dietary morality The ongoing plant holocaust lies solely on the conscience of the vegans. — Txastopher

You're trying to inject pseudoscience into the discussion by telling us that plants deserve the same moral consideration as sentient creatures. You want to talk about dogmatic assertions, that's ironic.

If you can prove that plants can suffer and can perceive pain without a brain or nervous system, you'd probably win a Nobel prize for discovering something that ground breaking. But before you can prove your non-evidenced based pseudoscience, can you provide ANY scientific peer reviewed journal that is currently out right now, that suggests plants can feel and perceive pain?

But as pointed out, even if we did have evidence that plants can feel pain to the same extent as cows/chickens/pigs/turkeys, Vegans would STILL be causing less harm.

Meat eaters:

1. Eats sentient and non-sentient animals. [Majority of our plants/crops that we grow in the world are fed to factory farmed animals.]
2. Also eats plants.

Vegan:

1. Only eats plants.

So not only are you cause plants a ridiculous amount of more harm than vegans [by also feeding plants to every factory farmed animal], but you are also cause harm to the animals that eat those plants. And on top of that, you are also eating the plants themselves.

Two things you forgot to mention. 1. Veganism also causes less environmental harm. - 2. Veganism also causes less self-harm, as it is more healthy for your body. Both of these facts have scientific consensus supporting them. Where's your scientific consensus for plants being able to feel pain?

[Smh. I don't understand how this thread even got here. Where people are saying that Vegans are dogmatic because they cannot prove plants don't feel pain. Well, you can't prove that a rock doesn't feel pain, so maybe we should be more morally considerate to rocks too, right?]

Tag, you're it.

For goodness sake this is not a science forum. We are not here to discuss the technicalities of scientific papers. Have a look at the title bar of the page and tell me what it says just before the word 'Forum'. — Pseudonym

Funny that you were okay posting scientific references and articles when it fit your agenda, but then when I refuted it with an article from Gaverick Matheny, you suddenly state that this is not a science forum. The dishonesty is transparent here.

I don't care to discuss things with you any longer. I'll let NKBJ take over.

There are still three ethical claims which remain un-addressed and until they are further discussion is pointless. — Pseudonym

And you still haven't address that your linked 2002 Study [by Steven Davis] was refuted by Gaverick Matheny in 2003.

Again, you have not philosophically supported the argument that conciousness is equal to value — Pseudonym

A sentient being of higher consciousness can improve the lives of other sentient beings. They also have the capability to improve the lives of members from a different species. Therefore, a sentient being has more value, because it can provide benefits to other species, as well as members within its own species. We see this in nature, where one species will save and protect the babies of a different species from outside predators. Non-sentient life, such as plants, does not have this value of being able to protect other life.

You have not substantiated your claim that the reason we do not kill and eat other humans (or pets for that matter) is because of the value we assign to their level of conciousness or sentience, you have merely asserted it. It's perfectly reasonable that we do not kill other humans(or pets) in order to minimise the pain caused to their communities (or owners) at their loss. It may simply be a taboo designed to avoid recriminations - we don't kill other humans (or their beloved pets) because they are capable of killing us in turn. — Pseudonym

You're speaking in the general, by stating "we". Everybody has a different perspective on why they do not kill or eat other humans. Maybe someone doesn't kill other humans because they do not want to go to jail, not necessarily because they care about causing harm to the human. Maybe their entire reason for not killing a human is fear of punishment and incarceration. You'd have to ask them. I've never asserted that other people don't kill humans because they assign value to their sentience. I've actually done the opposite, which is me asking people WHY they would be okay with killing animals, but not okay with killing humans. So far, the only answers I've received are flawed and superfluous.

Finally, you have not provided any argument to support the claim that these ethical considerations (harm, the intrinsic value of sentience, internal moral consistency) outweigh other ethical values - Naturalness or moderation and tolerance (both of which incidentally are listed as universal human virtues). — Pseudonym

I never claimed that one ethical value outweighs another value. I have simply stated, ethical consistency leads to Veganism. And I still stand by that. The only way to be ethically consistent without being a Vegan, is to treat animals and humans the same, in a negative sense. Meaning, you wouldn't care if you harmed a human, just as you wouldn't care if you harmed an cow. These people tend to be sociopaths.

Also, I created a new Google Doc today that portrays my ethical consistency test a bit better. See below:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1157oWUs6KYeRAKATUEKisl6LsGvEATYfc_OQeZN87vE/edit?usp=sharing

The plant wants the same as it is a living organism, except it can't moved (in most cases) . It may not scream in pain, but it presumably wants to avoid the same fate. Why do some living organisms get that benefit while others do not? A nervous system seems to be an arbitrary way to measure their right to life. — yatagarasu

A plant cannot "want", as it doesn't have a brain to perceive anything. A plant "wants" to survive in the same way bacteria "wants" to survive, yet neither of them have a brain or central nervous system. Neither can feel pain, produce thoughts, have emotions, etc... A nervous system is only one part of the equation, as something also needs a brain to perceive pain or have thoughts and emotions.

If you want to take the general stance of "everything wants to continue living and reproducing", then the fruitarians shouldn't eat fruit either. Because then, mold wouldn't be able to consume it, correct? Doesn't mold want to live just as much as plants or viruses do? This is the problem with your objection to my ethics, as you seem to be stating that all life wants to continue living and we shouldn't stop it from doing so.

You draw a line at "all forms of life want to live, therefore we shouldn't harm it". While I draw a line at "all sentient life wants to live, therefore we shouldn't harm it." - And i wouldn't call my line arbitrary, because I can use reason and evidence to support my ethical position.

Many Fruitatarians only eat fruit that has fallen naturally. From a scientific perspective fruits are allowed because you are benefiting the plant by eating the endosperm and not harming the plant at all. — yatagarasu

As I already stated above, you're harming the mold or bacteria that wants to consume it to survive.

Since both plants and animals reproduce they are living and therefore should be treated the same, regardless of their nervous systems. : ) — yatagarasu

Bacterium, virus, and fungus are also living. Should we treat bacteria the same as animals too?

First of all, why does it matter that plants can't suffer? Why does that entail the forfeiture of their existence to us or other organisms? — yatagarasu

Because this is what immoral actions are based upon. Causing unnecessary harm. Causing harm to life implies that the life has the capability to perceive harm. If it cannot perceive harm, such as a plant or a rock, we do not have an obligation to it in the same way we would toward a sentient being that CAN perceive harm.

A few out there, mostly those that follow Jainism practice Fruitarianism. That seems to be the most rational form of following through any argument that pushes for avoiding destroying living organisms. Veganism seems to be not specific enough. Oh, meat producing organisms are protected, but not ones that produce plants for us to eat? — yatagarasu

Many fruits still grow on trees, in which you still have the same affect on plants that Vegans would have. But again, you'd have to provide some data that Fruitarians cause less harm than Vegans. But even so, I don't think you can sufficiently benefit from a diet consisting entirely of fruits. You would need to include nuts, seeds and vegetables with every meal because they will provide the fat and protein you need. They will also help slow down any blood sugar spikes that come from eating only fruit.

Second, if we were able to create an organism that had no nervous system and did not suffer but was made of meat. Would it be okay to eat that meat? Just wanted to see what others thought. — yatagarasu

Such as lab meat? Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Since no pain, suffering or killing was involved, I don't find it wrong.

We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing. — Life101

We don't need meat to survive.

The Association of UK Dietitians - "British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages"

US National Library of Medicine - "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. The world that we inhabit would also be healthier without the commercial meat industry. Factory farms are a waste of resources, environmentally damaging, and ethically indefensible. It is time to accept that a plant-predominant diet is best for us individually, as a race, and as a planet."

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

Posted my google doc link to provide you with scientific journals that display the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet.

It is wrong because we are unnecessarily harming another sentient creature. There's necessary harm, such as self-defense, and unnecessary harm, such as slavery or factory farming. The health and environmental factors are well-established science, so that's not even debatable. Which is why I am attacking this issue from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one.

When I hit a plant with a stick, I feel guilt. When I hit a pig with a stick, I feel the same guilt.

I find it wrong to assume that plants are a better alternative simply because you don't have a scientific explaination that proves plants are not thinking and can't feel pain. What would you do if there is proof?
Would you feel bad every time you eat? — Regi

If you hit a rock with a stick, do you also feel the same guilt? Because this is getting a little bit absurd, when you start comparing non-sentient life with sentient life. If there's proof that plants and/or rocks can feel pain, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But for now, there's no evidence to suggest that, so it is irrelevant to talk about it. What is relevant, is talking about sentient life [such as farm animals] that CAN feel pain.

First time I heard that. I thought there were only a few tribes who did this. — Regi

Yes, there are a few tribes that still practice it today.

I don't believe killing and eating them is though as they are not agents and cannot ever become agents with similar responsibilities to us and so aren't entitled to similar rights to us. We owe them a comfortable life right up to and including the moment of death in my view but nothing more. — Baden

Would you say the same thing applies to a mentally disabled person who cannot ever become an agent, and we could argue has the same mental capacity as a cow?

You also point out that you don't want to be a part of harming animals by eating their meat (which I respect). But, what if an animal had a good life on a farm (WHICH IS POSSIBLE), and then they kill it without it causing stress or pain (WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE), then there is no harm, right? There is just the natural food chain 2.0, without any suffering. — Regi

This is better than regular factory farmed animals, but it still isn't good enough. Although the pain and suffering is important, so is the killing. Why would you feel the need to unnecessarily kill an animal? And by unnecessary, I am referring to plant-based products that we have as alternatives. Animal slaughter is not necessary when we have a better alternative. We are killing an animal against its own will to live. I'd assume you would not like it if someone killed you unnecessarily against your will, would you? Also, many people wouldn't accept the same type of unnecessary killing for their own pets, such as dogs or cats. So why is it okay for a pig to be slaughtered unnecessarily, but not a dog?

And about cannibalism, the situation you describe says that cannibalism is socially accepted, that it is normal to eat other humans. Well this is fiction, this goes against the human nature, we are not created to eat each other. We are programmed to hunt other species. — Regi

It doesn't matter if it is fiction, as I was using a hypothetical to expose the flaw in your reasoning. Also, factory farming goes against nature, so you are already going against nature in that sense. There are many things that occur in nature, not just within our species, but within others as well. Things like cannibalism and rape. Humans aren't the only species that are cannibalistic, but to say it isn't natural, would be an incorrect statement.

So again, if cannibalism was the societal norm (which in some parts of the world, it already is), would you be okay with getting accidentally fed human meat instead of meat from a cow? Would you throw it away instead of eating it?

In my opinion, there is no need for scientific proof at all. It's wrong to just assume and act like plants are worth less than animals, simply because you don't give a shit about plants. This doesn't make you a better person. It makes only you feel better ! — Regi

It has nothing to do with me not giving a shit about plants. It has to do with the current scientific consensus, which is that plants are not sentient. And since they are not sentient, they cannot feel or perceive pain. They just react and adapt to their environment, similar to how bacteria or viruses do. A virus may change/adapt in ways that allow it to survive, but this does not mean it is conscious or capable of feeling pain. That's the entire point, is causing less harm/pain to animals that have the capacity to feel it.

If you don't eat meat because you care less about plants than animals, you're just having an unethical opinion, nothing more. Your veganism may be all about making yourself feel better. — Regi

I already cleared this up. It isn't about caring less about plants, as if their sentience is equal to plants. I care about causing the least amount of harm/pain to creatures that have the capacity to feel it. Plants cannot feel or experience pain.

If you don't eat meat because you want your ecological footprint to be smaller, you have a good reason in my opinion, much respect ! — Regi

This is part of the reason I do not eat meat, yes. Because the environmental damage is substantial, and not eating meat would help climate change improve.

If you're a vegan and a piece of meat is served to you by accident, and then you don't eat it and rather throw it in the garbage, you're the worst vegan in my opinion. When an animal died and gave his meat to you and you throw it away, sorry, 0 respect, 0 brains, 0 veganism. — Regi

If it started to become the societal standard, that cooking human body parts was part of the menu, and they accidentally served you a piece of human arm, would you eat it? Because according to you, that human died and gave their meat to you and you threw it away, sorry, 0 respect, 0 brains, 0 anti-cannibalism.

If you don't eat meat because you are hurt by animals suffering, then eat biological meat in stead. These animals had a decent life. I also don't like eating meat when I know for sure the animals have suffered. — Regi

What is biological meat? Are you talking about organic meat? Things like 'organic' or 'cage-free' or 'grass-fed' or 'free-range', mean absolutely NOTHING in regards to the living conditions of these animals. All these animals are still kept in horrible living conditions a majority of the time, and are still slaughtered unnecessarily.

If you don't eat eggs or drink milk, you're just weird in my opinion. We give the animals food, shelter and safety, they give us eggs and milk, it's just a fair beneficial trade between two species. — Regi

The dairy industry is probably the worst of the worst. Raping a female cow with bull sperm, stealing her baby on the day it is born to never be seen again, killing the male cows early for veal. And for the chickens, killing all the males shortly after birth, debeaking the females [which causes a lot of pain], shoving them in small areas that provide horrible living conditions.

Also, it's fair? To say you give them shelter and safety, is slightly ridiculous. You give them shelter and safety by torturing and slaughtering them? How would you like to be factory farmed and put in these living conditions, and then slaughtered at a young age so you cannot live out your natural life?

I'll wait for chatterbears's answer about insects before I say more. — Baden

You can do the research yourself, but Entomologists have stated they aren't convinced that insects feel pain. Having a central nervous system is only one part of it, but being able to perceive what your nervous system is telling you is another part. This is why Entomologists are more convinced that complex insects, such as Bees, are more likely to be of a higher consciousness and can feel pain.

But to answer your question, I also don't see a need to kill insects for food when it is not necessary. So the same argument applies to farm animals, which is, why would we kill them when it is not necessary? We have other plant-based foods that cause much less harm, and are healthier for you and the environment.

Back to Ad Hominem huh. You get upset when the scientific journals don't support your defective reasoning, so you go back to nonsensical comments. Stop derailing the thread, since you obviously don't care to discuss things.

Beings that have no centralized nervous systems are not sentient. This includes bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, plants and certain animals. Bacteria can adapt in the same way plants do, in order to survive. This doesn't mean that bacteria is sentient and can feel pain. There's no research to support this idea, other than saying, "Plants are complex." - Well yeah, bacteria and viruses are also complex, but we wouldn't call it sentient and capable of feeling pain or suffering.

None of your research was a scientific journal, other than your NCBI link. And even that link said NOTHING about plants being conscious or being able to remember. And the way they "communicate" is by environmental adaptation. Similar to how plants may lean toward the light as an adaptive response to their environment.

But again. Link me a scientific journal that states that plants can remember things. You linked me a random profile from researchgate, then an article from NPR that includes a TED Talk. All these 'talks' and 'articles' describe plants that adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Not one has stated that plants have a brain, or feel pain, or can remember, or have a nervous system.

Your research provides everything I already knew about plants. And my main argument still stands, which is to not cause unnecessary pain and suffering. Plants cannot suffer because they do not feel pain; since they do not have a brain or nervous system.

There is very interesting recent research regarding plant sensitivity that demonstrates their abilities to learn, communicate and remember. — Txastopher

I'd love for you to post the research, instead of constantly asserting things without evidence. Plants can remember? Post the scientific journals and I'll be happy to consider them.

Why are these studies so old? It would be more relevant to find studies within the past 5-7 years, as more knowledge has been gained since 2002. But either way, that 2002 study that you posted has been refuted by Gaverick Matheny.

2002 Study [Steven Davis] - Was refuted by Gaverick Matheny
2003 Study [Counter to Steven David] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026354906892

Gaverick Matheny states, in response to Steven Davis, "In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

Read full article here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

Your 2003 Study [Lucas & Sam] - "Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur." - So this is talking about exceptions, not general knowledge that would apply.

Your 2017 Study [Nature] - "Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits." - Again, talking about exceptions, such as individual dietary habits, not necessarily plant-based diets themselves.

Here are some articles I can point you to that are more recent and relevant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959 - Clicking the "Figures" tab on the right side, you can see how much higher the CO2 levels of Dairy, Egg, Fish & Livestock are compared to plant-based foods.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data - Global Emissions of Agriculture exceed transportation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM - the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html - Scientific Sources are cited throughout the article.

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. — Pseudonym

Post it again so I can read the study. I don't understand why you couldn't just post it again, when I even said "I may have missed it, so can you link it".

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. — Pseudonym

If people actually thought that factory farming needed improvement, why aren't they doing anything to help improve it? And the only way to improve an animal enslavement and holocaust is by abolishing it. Also, my original post was "Is it wrong to eat animals?" - This is a general statement that would apply in most situations. Similar to "Is it wrong to rape?" - There many situations where it is not wrong to rape, such as a child soldier who is forced to rape his sister, otherwise they will kill her. In that situation, death is worse than rape, so it is not immoral for him to rape his sister because he was forced to; and the alternative would be death. Same thing with eating animals. There may be a situation where you're forced to, where it depends on your survival. But generally speaking, I am not referring to the child soldier situation or the stranded on a deserted island situation. I am referring to the people who contribute to factory farms every day, by buying animal products. An unnecessary harm (lustful rape / bacon) vs. a necessary harm (child soldier rape / killing an animal for survival).

I don't think so cause animals eat each other all the time anyway. — Shiva Surya Sai

Not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying, it is okay to eat animals because other animals eat each other? If this is what you're saying, you're appealing to nature. That because it happens in nature, it is morally acceptable. Rape and cannibalism occur in nature, should it therefore be morally acceptable if humans rape and eat other humans?

Simply, I do not believe that no gods exist and I do not believe that some god exists. — Jerry

Then you are an Atheist. There are two propositions.

1. I believe god exists.
2. I believe god does not exist.

If you do not accept #1 as true, you're an Atheist. It doesn't matter what your answer is to #2, as that would be the difference between weak and strong Atheism. If you accept #2, you would be a Strong Atheist (or Gnostic Atheist), but if you reject #2, you would be a Weak Atheist (or Agnostic Atheist).

It gets frustrating when people try to be in the middle, and call themselves Agnostic. That is completely irrelevant to the question of belief. Agnostic & Gnostic are about Knowledge, while Theism & Atheism are about Belief. So when someone says, "Do you believe a God exists?", you're answer should pertain to belief, not knowledge. The question was NOT "Do you know a God exists?". To that question, you could say you're Agnostic, meaning "I don't know." - But to the first question of, "Do you believe a God exists?" - If you're answer is anything other than yes, then you are an Atheist. If your answer is "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I am not convinced", then you clearly lack the belief that a God exists, which makes you an Atheist.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

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."

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

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 :)

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

You just proved my point. 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].

What do you think? — TheMadFool

I don't have a problem with lab created meat. I'd probably even eat it :D

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

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?

Kill a dog? = Psychopath
Kill a pig? = Breakfast
Kill neither? = EXTREMIST !

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

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.

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

We extend compassion for them because of the harm it would cause to those who love them. It has nothing to do with causing harm to the brain damaged person himself, but more about causing harm (mental distress) to the people who love that brain damaged person. If a person had no family or ties to anyone, and could not recover from this brain dead (vegetable) state, I don't' see a problem killing him/her. But to compare that to plants, is a bit silly and slightly absurd.

You still haven't explained why or how you tell if something is considered right or wrong from your perspective. I'd like an answer to this.

We eat animals because they have a lower ability in thought, and cannot understand a deeper level of right and wrong. — Pseudonym

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?

Nonsense, in case of scavenging I can eat meat without causing any additional suffering, the animal is dead already. — Tomseltje

Nice strawman there. You already know I am not referring to animals that we find dead. I am referring to animals that we kill, such as in factory farms.

Again my position is that as long as humans can do it in a way it causes equal or less amount of suffering to the animal than it would suffer otherwise in nature without being farmed, it's ethical enough. — Tomseltje

And for your position to be consistent, would you allow the same to be true for humans? Because a human probably wouldn't last that long by themselves in the Amazon forest or on the plains of Africa. So for you to have a consistent position, swap the cow with a human, and it would be OK to do the same to them?

No, they don't. For many people living in pain is worse than death, a short but happy life may be considered by many to be preferable to a long but miserable one. Pain and death are most certainly not sufficiently similar that an argument about one can be substituted for an argument about the other. It is perfectly legitimate, for example, to argue that the shorter but comfortable life of an humanely farmed cow is preferable to the perhaps longer but less comfortable (diseases, fear of predators, variable food supply) life of that same animal in the wild. I personally would not agree with that argument because I value autonomy and the freedom to express our natures and so I extend that value to sentient animals, but it's certainly not as cut and dried as you're making out. If your argument is to minimize net harm you could easily argue that that could be satisfied by taking an animal from the wild and rearing it for meat, giving it a shorter but much happier life. That is why, philosophically it so important to get at the distinction between death and suffering. — Pseudonym

Both actions need to be properly justified. Yes, a world with a perfectly raised animal that experienced no torture and pain, up until a painless (one shot in the head) death, would be better than what we are doing right now. But that 'death' is still being caused by us, and that is the whole point. I want a world where HUMANS can minimize net harm that THEY cause. If animals lived in the wild, diseases and predators are not harm that is caused by us. I am specifically referring to harm that is cause by us, and how we justify it. If you wouldn't justify raising a human needless for food, why would you justify it for an animal? And so far, the only thing I have heard is things like, "Because it tastes good." or "Because it makes me happy." or "Because God allowed us to have dominion over animals." - All these reasons would be rejected in any other context, and therefore are not valid or consistent reasons to use to justify an action.