Why vegans are simply better people

[ConspiRaider]

When vegans make the argument that the worth of all animal species is the same (but curiously, not plants to animals despite the fact that plants are life forms) - I think this one argument is what causes so much eye-rolling amongst those of us who make no such claim.

We humans are simply going to hold up humans as separate from everything else and that's that. We're going to impart more worth to ourselves because it's what species do. Period. No different than a mother lionness caring for her cubs. She doesn't leave them when she sees antelope cubs and she doesn't do anything at all to care for those baby antelopes. She's invested in the future of her species above all others. And so are we. How is that such a difficult concept for some vegans to comprehend? Besides which, our empathy for other humans is about as unshakable a bond as any in the phyla, the kingdoms of life. We're highly intelligent, very social - tremendously empathetic towards each other.

If RevereBison or Dessi are with a pet dog, something happens and they fall into a fast moving river - and I'm within range to help? Either the human or the dog can be saved but not both? No-brainer - I'm saving RevereBison or Dessi one million times out of one million times.

Let's say Dessi gets out to a rock outcropping in the middle of the river. She can't swim, I can't swim. The tide is rising. Soon, her sanctuary is going to disappear. No one else around - but I've got an axe. There's a tree near the riverbank and if I take it down - it'll reach to her. So I've got to kill a tree - maybe a 35-year old birch tree - to save a person. No-brainer. That tree is going to be a nice ole walking bridge.

This is all instinctive stuff, folks. And that's why I shake my head in disbelief when certain vegans (but I will assume not all) compare a person to a goat and speak of parallel evaluation of worth. I don't buy it.

 

[Cain]

The aforementioned animal rights groups have committed terrorist acts upon more than just property; they target humans. Although property destruction is meant to incite terror so I really can't see how or why you would draw the line at property destruction...okay and denying that humans have been targeted.

Property destruction is intended to halt to harming animals. Targeting humans for harm -- clubbing someone in the face like a baby seal, clearly violates the principles of the ALF. A more serious argument is that for any actions gone wrong, the group can retroactively disclaim responsibility.

It is not a fallacy merely because you proclaim it so. I somewhat delight in the hypocrisy of those arguing for animal rights while benefiting off the backs of animals on a near daily basis. Now if you want to do this right, you've committed a false equivalence or false analogy by equating past random acts with ones you consciously make in the present. Your welcome.

You have the causality backwards: it's not a fallacy BECAUSE I called it one; rather, I called it a fallacy because it is one, and none of these desperate charges of "false analogy" alters that fact. I don't think you understand... A sunk-cost necessarily deals with things in the past.

Suppose the people in our society suddenly achieved enlightenment -- even you -- and we decided to halt the exploitation of animals, including animal experimentation. Would it be wrong to continue using drugs that were initially tested on animals? No. Is it necessarily hypocritical? No.

Perhaps it requires a level of reasoning that beyond your grasp. Maybe the sort of person ready to cry "hypocrite" when a moral vegan says it's OK to cook and eat road-kill, or to go dumpster diving outside Mickey Ds.

 

[BravesFan]

Sort of echoing Kevin Lowe above, I'd like to hopefully break the issue down into something much simpler. The fact is, most of us would agree that all things being equal, it's better to not kill or harm animals than it is to kill them or harm them. This being the case, the question for me becomes "can we eat and live comfortably without eating animals"?

The answer, if you live in a first world country, is unquestionably yes. You can. You can live and eat and be happy on a plant based diet. Thousands of people have been doing it for many years. So the issue for me is not so much that you kill the animals in a humane way. It's that killing them at all is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. You didn't have to kill them to sustain yourself. You could have eaten a veggie dog instead of a hot dog. Or a veggie burger instead of that burger. You could have eaten cashew cheese instead of that dairy. Your body would be perfectly nourished without harming that animal. It's all right there at the supermarket. Just move your arm 3 feet over and grab the veggie ground round instead of the beef. Done!

So in absence of a NEED to kill the animal, the only justification is that it tastes good. Or maybe just tastes better than the vegan version of the dish. In which case, yes, moral judgment should be brought into the equation. Because at this point, you're making the argument that needless killing is ok as long as it tastes better than the vegan dish.

And as Dessi points out, if taste is all that matters, you could just as easily argue for eating humans. The fact that you don't is an example of you putting ethics above taste buds, which is the argument for veganism.

Nope, nope aaannnd nope....

We need animal proteins to survive and be healthy. We are designed to eat and digest animal proteins (probably not in the amount we shove down our pieholes but that's an argument over price not over content).

I don't think most people feel it's better not to kill animals for food. I think most people would find it wrong to kill animals for reasons other than food or disease prevention. But not for food. Telling a human he is somehow immoral for eating meat is JUST AS FALLACIOUS an argument as telling it to a fox. Fox gotta eat. Fox eat thing tears off head, yummy. This is what we are designed to do!!!

Your argument is that because we have computers and terrible artificial meat we should be happy with it and not differ from YOUR little scheme that works for you and therefor MUST work for everyone else or they are bad immoral people. This is EXACTLY the same argument used by Jesus Freaks.. EXACTLY. You are projecting your values onto me. I personally choose not to agree with your point of view as i find it frankly, ridiculous.



i dunno folks, I don't care what you choose to eat, I do care when you start calling me an immoral person because of what I choose to eat and making some stupid claim that it's equally moral to eat people because we are also animals isn't going to help your cause at all. We don't eat people because WE are people, because it involves killing a person and because it involves being a sociopath and going to prison forever. None of these things are moral.

Equating this to eating a cow is sillier than Bigfootery. (and believe me that's saying something).

Like I said earlier, you eat what you want , I will eat what i want and let's spend more time talking and discussing what things bring us together as people instead of the things that push us apart.


edited- cause I got a little cranky and made a dumb statement

 

[Beat]

I dare you meat eating smart asses to actually take time to read this link:

http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf

"I dare Meat eating smart asses..." spoken like a true "better" person.
Anyway, I thought I'd show you this; the china study does not support a vegan diet.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-china-study-revisited/
There are no health benefits to a vegan diet, and in fact, meat protein is relatively anti-cancerous, as meat probably has more of the amino acid content that codes for major tumor suppressor genes -- so there is another pretty good reason to eat meat (or whey protein) besides just having more healthy body mass.
I'm not going try to make a moral argument out of this, though. If you value animal rights over your health, go for it.

 

[Cain]

When vegans make the argument that the worth of all animal species is the same (but curiously, not plants to animals despite the fact that plants are life forms) - I think this one argument is what causes so much eye-rolling amongst those of us who make no such claim.

Can you identify any vegans in this thread who make such a claim?

We humans are simply going to hold up humans as separate from everything else and that's that. We're going to impart more worth to ourselves because it's what species do. Period. No different than a mother lionness caring for her cubs. She doesn't leave them when she sees antelope cubs and she doesn't do anything at all to care for those baby antelopes. She's invested in the future of her species above all others. And so are we. How is that such a difficult concept for some vegans to comprehend? Besides which, our empathy for other humans is about as unshakable a bond as any in the phyla, the kingdoms of life. We're highly intelligent, very social - tremendously empathetic towards each other.

I think vegans understand "regular" people much better than the reverse. Humans also tend to associate and identify more with people of their own race. An ethnically clannish animal. So? Our natural dispositions are chosen by nature for survival and replication value, not truth value. There are probably good reasons to believe that humans are inclined toward a belief in invisible higher powers.

Also, regarding your rather dull question, "Who speaks for plants rights?" Many omnivores -- a majority in the United States -- support laws against animal cruelty. Are they foolish hypocrites for not supporting laws against plant cruelty?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Personally, I've always found it odd when people carve an ethically untouchable niche for their dinner plate. We debate ethics when it comes to sex, but this topic is too personal? I get the feeling that a lot of meat-eaters feel as though they are being called morally wrong when the morality of meat eating (or the industry) is brought up. Personally, I've never been bothered with judging other people in these discussions (At least, for what they eat ). I always walk into it seeing how the arguments and information provided fit with my own ideals and convictions.

Also, about the wild vs farm life debate. I think I see a similarity to that moral dilemma of pushing a man in from of a train, or letting a man get hit by a train (It might have a proper name, I don't know it but I've seen it many times). Of course, to complicate things one may have more or less well-being depending on your particular calculus and on the type of farm.

On the "happy farm" model, I believe that the idyllic versions painted would be so much more inefficient than the factory farms that a large percent of the populous would go "flexitarian" like many regions in the world due to the supply shortage and price increase. Of course, finding the exact numbers on this topic is very difficult.

What I find odd is when people desire "humanely" treated meat yet don't count the generally accepted most egregious kind of harm, death. So yes, I guess you would say that I hate moderates .

 

[Beat]

What I find odd is when people desire "humanely" treated meat yet don't count the generally accepted most egregious kind of harm, death. So yes, I guess you would say that I hate moderates .

I agree with most of your post, but death is not the worst way to suffer. There are many methods of torture that extend suffering to the point where people consider them worse than death.
Take two examples of how cows are slaughtered in farms:
1. The humane way, where a steel bolt is shot into the cow's brain, instantly killing it. The cow feels a minimal amount of pain and it lasts less than a second.
2. Kosher slaughter, where the cow is put into a giant metal harness that prevents it from moving, turned upside down slowly, and its throat is slit far enough to remove the trachea and have the cow choke to death on its own blood. This is torture, because the cow is suffering for an extended and unnecessary amount of time.
I think that the "happy farm" model can be somewhat efficient, emulate a wild habitat for the animals leading them to yield more meat.

Personally, I've always found it odd when people carve an ethically untouchable niche for their dinner plate. We debate ethics when it comes to sex, but this topic is too personal? I get the feeling that a lot of meat-eaters feel as though they are being called morally wrong when the morality of meat eating (or the industry) is brought up. Personally, I've never been bothered with judging other people in these discussions (At least, for what they eat ). I always walk into it seeing how the arguments and information provided fit with my own ideals and convictions.

Well, what's really going on with the "ethically untouchable" food is that we value our health a little bit more than other animal's rights. To most people, it's not really worth arguing personal preference over general health. If human meat became a dish in some country, they would instantly be disparaged worldwide because we place a high priority on our species' rights.

When someone attacks me for eating meat, I can easily question why they aren't using their time and energy trying to stop human suffering instead. I find it rather pointless, especially since there is no evidence that shows health benefits of dropping meat from your diet -- in fact, there are serious risks. It's an argument that comes solely out of personal preference.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

She listed both the fallacy and the argument. I was talking about the argument, but perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Correctly identifying an argument as fallacious is refuting it.

Humans are animals so proposing the exception to any rule applied to animals, but not to humans is special pleading.

Total nonsense. You are deliberately misinterpreting the vegan position so you can make a false charge of special pleading. Vegans are perfectly clear that they have different moral expectations of humans and non-human animals because humans differ from non-human animals in having the kind of mind that can engage in moral philosophy. That's not special pleading.

Incorrect. As I said much of the argument revolves around humans being animals that shouldn't act like animals.

Of course humans are animals that shouldn't act like non-human animals.

That's special pleading, which is exactly what I said was the problem. You've lost me.

This string of words makes no sense in context, hence this is all the response I can give it.

Again, this is special pleading which presumes humans are animals but shouldn't act like animals. This is exactly what I said is the problem with this argument.

That's not a problem unless you actually hold the incredibly stupid position that humans should act like non-human animals.

 

[epepke]

Once more with feeling:

Plants, salmonella, ants, AI opponents in video games and such have no mental life.

Plenty of feeling, no doubt, but how much reason?

An average ant has two and one-half times as many neurons as an average lobster. I have yet to meet a vegan who didn't go primate-fertilizer and insect-intercourse over the process of boiling a lobster, or even the "humane" way of heating it slowly until it suffocates. Perhaps you'll be the first.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I think vegans understand "regular" people much better than the reverse.

I'm going to make the assumption you're a vegan because your posts do so much doubling back upon themselves that I'm not sure. Are you a vegan or not? And if so: Why are you not "regular"? Do you really believe you are "better"?

Also, regarding your rather dull question, "Who speaks for plants rights?" Many omnivores -- a majority in the United States -- support laws against animal cruelty. Are they foolish hypocrites for not supporting laws against plant cruelty?

Another vague set of questions - and you missed the entire point of that broadly sarcastic post of mine.

So I'll spell it out: Vegans are not shy about making judgments on species worth. I say, go for it if that suits you. Yet it's all subjective, correct? You're simply deciding: "Species Group A (animals) over here should be evaluated this way and this way only. Species Group P (plants) - we're kind of open on that. But we insist that everyone conform to our proclamation that Species Group A be evaluated exactly as we see it."

You're making this proclamation to an omnivorous species. You yourself are an omnivore - you are designed - you've evolved, to extract nutrition from plant life, animal life (which includes insects) and of course other items such as mushrooms, fungi (truffles), mosses and molds (bleu cheese).

My point was: This judgment and classifying of species, their worth, their usage by us - gets complicated rather quickly, wouldn't you agree? Are vegans saying: Because we kind of sort of understand in some ways how all animals tick (including dung beetles), then we must not make usage of ANY of them. However, because we really don't quite understand much about how species in other kingdoms tick (plants and mushrooms) - why then we can make use of them however we see fit.

Down to earth question: A "regular" family has 4 female chickens running loose in their large, fenced-in backyard. The chickens seem happy, unstressed. Those chickens lay eggs and the family eats them, while taking good care of the chickens. No debeaking. No crowding. All the food they need, plenty of space to flap around and have fun. Is this okay with you, morally? If not, why not?

 

[Cain]

I'm going to make the assumption you're a vegan because your posts do so much doubling back upon themselves that I'm not sure. Are you a vegan or not? And if so: Why are you not "regular"? Do you really believe you are "better"?

Yes, I am a vegan. I refrain from using or consuming animals because I want other humans to know how much better I am. Oh, I mean, I want to reduce suffering in the world.

Another vague set of questions - and you missed the entire point of that broadly sarcastic post of mine.

Quite the opposite...

So I'll spell it out: Vegans are not shy about making judgments on species worth. I say, go for it if that suits you.

A vegan is NOT shy about making judgments on a species' worth as opposed to the consumers who pay people to cook and kill animals. Yeah, those people are just totally non-judgmental.

Yet it's all subjective, correct?

People vary in how much moral worth they ascribe to non-humans... just as they vary in how much a Pakistani counts versus a Kenyan versus an Englishman. Different valuations, however, does not mean the issue is hopelessly subjective.

You're simply deciding: "Species Group A (animals) over here should be evaluated this way and this way only. Species Group P (plants) - we're kind of open on that. But we insist that everyone conform to our proclamation that Species Group A be evaluated exactly as we see it."

No, this is a straw man. Vegans have quite strong disagreements, one of the most basic of which involves the long-standing ethical argument about intentions versus consequences.

You're making this proclamation to an omnivorous species. You yourself are an omnivore - you are designed - you've evolved, to extract nutrition from plant life, animal life (which includes insects) and of course other items such as mushrooms, fungi (truffles), mosses and molds (bleu cheese).

I've also evolved to lie and detect lying. There's evidence suggesting men are selected for a "dark triad" of traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism). So, once again, evolution selects for survival and replication value, not truth value. You evolved to get where you're going on your two feet. Does that mean you shouldn't ride the bus?

My point was: This judgment and classifying of species, their worth, their usage by us - gets complicated rather quickly, wouldn't you agree? Are vegans saying: Because we kind of sort of understand in some ways how all animals tick (including dung beetles), then we must not make usage of ANY of them. However, because we really don't quite understand much about how species in other kingdoms tick (plants and mushrooms) - why then we can make use of them however we see fit.

An organism's moral significance is not commensurate to the extent of our scientific knowledge. Rather, moral worth is largely based on the organism's capacity to suffer.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "make usage" but I think answering your question below may help you see where I'm coming from.

Down to earth question: A "regular" family has 4 female chickens running loose in their large, fenced-in backyard. The chickens seem happy, unstressed. Those chickens lay eggs and the family eats them, while taking good care of the chickens. No debeaking. No crowding. All the food they need, plenty of space to flap around and have fun. Is this okay with you, morally? If not, why not?

I'm fine with it provided this is not the sort of thing that distresses hens. I'm guessing it doesn't, but WTF do I know about hens? Similarly I have no problem drinking a happy cow's milk, and when said cow keels over, I have no problem converting her hide into a cool motorcycle jacket. But it has to be a cool motorcycle jacket.

Now returning to my question -- the one you didn't answer -- do you want to hurl your above charges at omnivores who support laws Species A cruelty laws, but not Species P cruelty laws. They're treating organisms differently! They're saying the government, using your tax dollars, should prosecute people for torturing dogs, but not prosecute people for torturing carrots. Isn't that crazy?

 

[qayak]

I do in the same sense that you reject the many medical advances gained by non-consentual human experimentation.

So, not at all then. You partake of all the medical breakthroughs but get on your high horse about food. That was the point. Food is just your pet issue based on a lifestyle you choose. You don't turn your back on the cures discovered through animal testing just like I don't.

How are vegans better people?

I usually think of cruelty as anything which causes suffering, particularly suffering that is easy to avoid. Some cruelty can be relatively trivial, like tying a sock around your cats belly to watch it fall over; sometimes cruelty can be profound, such as pouring lighter fluid on a cat and setting it on fire. Most of the time, cruelty is going to refer to acts that are closer to the "lighting a cat on fire" level of severity than the "tying a sock around a cat's waist" level. I think that's a good starting point.

Well, I have never lit a cat on fire or tied a sock around its waist in order to get my dinner and have no idea what you are talking about. It is a fallacy to turn this into something so simple as "eating meat = animal torture = wrong."

I'm still not seeing any vegan higher moral ground.

Where on the scale does shooting a deer to feed my family fit on your arbitrary scale and why? That might change things.

I like to use the words "mentally similar" because people talk about human abilities, particularly human intelligence and rationality, as if the mental capacities between humans were homogeneous and uniform across the entire population. For example, people often make the remark that its ok to kill animals because animals aren't smart enough to make moral decisions... well, there's a whole class of humans in that category, like infants, children, severely mentally handicapped, who are no more or less capable of making moral decisions than animals, a fact which kinda throws a wrench into the argument against animals if we're not prepared to apply it non-rational humans. I like to use "mentally similar" as kind of an umbrella term for a humans, usually called marginal persons, who lack requisite rationality, intelligence, moral reciprocity, sense of self, or other properties people fall back on when they try to draw moral distinctions between rational humans and animals.

That's fine. I don't make such distinctions. I think some animals deserve basic human rights based on their intelligence and awareness. I don't think most food animals fit into that category.

Perhaps if you could give a convincing argument as to why you think they do, you might hold the moral high ground.

In other words, appeal to nature. You know, the exact same argument fundies use when they say homosexuality is immoral because its unnatural.

No, not at all. Homosexuality isn't unnatural.

Vegans don't win on this one either.

Ok, that was too easy, maybe even glib. Nevermind the fact that the naturalistic fallacy is, well, a fallacy. Let's actually consider the argument for a moment: we not only evolved to compete against other animals, but competing against members of our own species. Sure, I can cooperate with you for my own benefit, or I can enslave you, take your property, and harvest your organs for my own benefits. That's the scary thing about an appeal to nature: we can use it justify eating meat in exactly the same way we can justify slavery, ethnic nationalism, every manner of human cruelty ever inflicted to grant a survival advantage over any other person.

Only if you use a very simplistic and incorrect understanding of human evolution. Humans survived and thrived because we cooperate. Up until recently we lived in small family groups and people outside those groups were not seen as "human" but as animals. Competition was between groups and bad things were inflicted upon other groups. As things got better for us, the groups got bigger.

Today, because of our understanding of genetics and our success upon the planet, the group is pretty much the entire world of human beings. There are no "other" groups.

The point being, the one who is making the evolution fallacy is you. I simply stated the fact that evolution made us a particular way. I never said it was right or wrong. You are the one who put the value judgement on it. The fallacy belongs to you. We are omnivores and because I do not think killing an animal for food is cruel, there is no other moral value to it.

Vegans aren't ahead here either.

We evolved in a lot of ways, but no one takes evolution seriously as a normative moral theory, and certainly not a human rights moral theory at that.

People like to pretend that they are rational about everything. Unfortunately, you have to ignore a whole bunch of research to make that idea fly. We are as much controlled by evolution and instinct as any other animal.

You do know that the sugar industry thrives on the fact that we evolved to crave carbohydrates, right? Wars have been fought, genocide committed, ever sugar. Do you refuse to eat sugar in all its forms?

Correct, eating meat is not necessarily equivalent to animal cruelty. I'm often asked whether I would eat a dead animal found the forest, or roadkill for that matter. I probably wouldn't for sanitation reasons, but the general argument against animal slaughter doesn't really carry over, there's no obvious objection.

The problem here isn't necessarily with eating meat, its that the justifications for doing so aren't very good, they fail a test for logical consistency on even cursory examination, something you've no doubt realized seeing how quickly you're "nature made us omnivores" argument went south.

Bunk. The title of the thread is that vegans are better people. You argue that it is because vegans don't eat meat. You yourself state that the issue isn't eating meat. You then go on to make some weak claim that the issue lies with my referring to us being omnivores.

The real issue is you don't like how food animals are treated. Right away that means vegans are not morally better than meat eaters, only that they are better, in some sense, than people who torture animals.

Our difference lies in the fact that I don't see killing an animal for food as cruel.

That's really all I care about, that people understand the principles they hold, and apply their principles consistently. I don't think many people hold very consistent ethics with regard to how they treat animals.

Bunk again. You assume way too much. You assume that no one but you has thought this through. I say most people have and live at a level that suits them. For instance:

I think great apes should be afforded basic human rights.

I think this should be extended to other animals as well.

I don't like to see, or be a party to, animals being treated cruelly.

I eat meat. (beef, chicken, fish, shellfish, very little pork and wild meat.)

I buy the meat I eat from companies I think operate ethically.

I don't think killing animals for food is cruel in and of itself.

I do not think vegans have the higher moral ground on anything.

Where is the inconsistency you see?

 

[Furcifer]

Total nonsense. You are deliberately misinterpreting the vegan position so you can make a false charge of special pleading. Vegans are perfectly clear that they have different moral expectations of humans and non-human animals because humans differ from non-human animals in having the kind of mind that can engage in moral philosophy. That's not special pleading.

Again,humans are animals. By creating "different moral expectations" for animal A and animal B it is by your own definition special pleading.

That's not a problem unless you actually hold the incredibly stupid position that humans should act like non-human animals.

As I said before, we don't. We do hold ourselves to a higher standard. There's a minimum set beyond which there is no moral obligation to follow.

If you wish you could say it's only special pleading if it's a moral obligation beyond the established minimum. I really don't see how that furthers the discussion though

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again,humans are animals. By creating "different moral expectations" for animal A and animal B it is by your own definition special pleading.

I don't know why you keep repeating this when it's so obviously completely wrong.

It would only be special pleading if vegans all argued "All human and non-human animals should be treated exactly equally in all respects" and then tried to argue that there should be higher moral expectations of humans.

Since they don't to this, you are attacking a straw man and egregiously abusing the term "special pleading" which I'd really prefer was kept in reserve for addressing things that actually were special pleading.

This illustrates the difference I alluded to earlier between rationalists who actually understand and can appropriately use the tools of reason, and "skeptics" who repeat tribal memes like "special pleading!" without actually understanding their meaning and without being able to apply those tools to new content. Issues like these differentiate the cargo cultist "skeptics" from the people who actually understand how planes work and can make them land.

 

[qayak]

I think vegans understand "regular" people much better than the reverse.

Judging from the posts they have made in this thread, I think you are mistaken.

Our natural dispositions are chosen by nature for survival and replication value, not truth value.

Where is the truth in your vegan dogma? You have made assertions about what you think but that doesn't make it anymore true" than anyone else's assertion about the morality if killing animals for food.

We can agree that animals should be treated in a manner that minimizes suffering and that it is a morally good thing to do but we don't agree that it is cruel to kill animals for food as long as it is done on a manner that minimizes suffering.

Also, regarding your rather dull question, "Who speaks for plants rights?" Many omnivores -- a majority in the United States -- support laws against animal cruelty. Are they foolish hypocrites for not supporting laws against plant cruelty?

And a tiny percentage of those people are vegans, non-practicing omnivores. Obviously, people who eat meat but care about how the animal it comes from is treated are the better people.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know why you keep repeating this when it's so obviously completely wrong.
It would only be special pleading if vegans all argued "All human and non-human animals should be treated exactly equally in all respects" and then tried to argue that there should be higher moral expectations of humans.

I think that's the view held by vegans like myself, Cain, citizenzen, Unaboogie, perhaps a few others on the forum. Most of us feel that we shouldn't inflict suffering on animals if we wouldn't be comfortable inflicting the same suffering on non-rational humans, especially if that suffering is easy to avoid..

Welcome to the party pal

I really don't see how you can tap dance around this one so I'll leave it at that for the moment.

This illustrates the difference I alluded to earlier between rationalists who actually understand and can appropriately use the tools of reason, and "skeptics" who repeat tribal memes like "special pleading!" without actually understanding their meaning and without being able to apply those tools to new content. Issues like these differentiate the cargo cultist "skeptics" from the people who actually understand how planes work and can make them land.

I don't follow your allusions here either. If you're special pleading, you're special pleading. It's not a "meme", it's a term for trying to say all animals should be treated equal and then squashing bugs.

 

[Kahalachan]

Plenty of feeling, no doubt, but how much reason?

An average ant has two and one-half times as many neurons as an average lobster. I have yet to meet a vegan who didn't go primate-fertilizer and insect-intercourse over the process of boiling a lobster, or even the "humane" way of heating it slowly until it suffocates. Perhaps you'll be the first.

Good point.

Livestock has been discussed but stupid sea life that barely has any functioning brain has no reason to be granted human rights.

Certainly clams don't have a working brain. Do people seriously care about fish? I mean literally will mourn if a fish gets eaten, as opposed to simply saying eating fish is bad to stick to some vegan dogma.

I remember PETA trying to push calling fish sea kittens to make them seem more cute and less desirable to eat.

Awwww look at the adorable little sea kitten.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Welcome to the party pal

I really don't see how you can tap dance around this one so I'll leave it at that for the moment.

It looks to me like you found a quote that says nothing like "we should treat human and non-human animals exactly equally" and are trying to pass it off then run away fast.

It would take some really creative twisting to turn Dessi's statement into "we should have the same moral expectations of a weasel that we do of a human", for example.

I don't follow your allusions here either. If you're special pleading, you're special pleading. It's not a "meme", it's a term for trying to say all animals should be treated equal and then squashing bugs.

As stated repeatedly, nobody ever said "all animals should be treated equal" so this is a straw man.

The point about memes is that these statements are evidence you don't understand in a functional way what special pleading actually is. You've just heard the term used by members of the skeptic tribe to belittle outsiders, and you're parroting it to try to belittle vegans.

 

[Johny2x4]

If I want to parrot vegans, I´m gonna simply continue with my lifestyle and eating meat. With a huge grin knowing their impotent to stop me from doing so.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It looks to me like you found a quote that says nothing like "we should treat human and non-human animals exactly equally" and are trying to pass it off then run away fast.

It would take some really creative twisting to turn Dessi's statement into "we should have the same moral expectations of a weasel that we do of a human", for example.



As stated repeatedly, nobody ever said "all animals should be treated equal" so this is a straw man.

The point about memes is that these statements are evidence you don't understand in a functional way what special pleading actually is. You've just heard the term used by members of the skeptic tribe to belittle outsiders, and you're parroting it to try to belittle vegans.

Dessi has repeatedly said in one way or another that we shouldn't treat animals in a way we wouldn't treat humans.. ( she can correct me if I misunderstood her; at which time I will be forced to re-read the entire thread and collect the statement I interpreted that way ... )

How does that differ substantially, if at all, from saying "all animals should be treated equal" ?