Why vegans are simply better people

[qayak]

Not to mention, the actual science points to carbohydrates as the source of much of our unhealth in the western world and not animal fat/protein. Here's another clue, smugness and self satisfaction are not virtues in and of themselves.

Yeah, that's why I brought up the issue of the sugar industry earlier. People don't realize how big that industry is and how many bad things have happened all because humans evolved so that our brains crave carbohydrates.

In our early days the sources were few and far between, now, because we can manipulate our environment so well, we have easy access all the time. Put a constant craving together with a ready source and it is a recipe for obesity.

Apparently, the vegans here didn't understand the reference. Maybe it was the Silence of the Lambs that had their attention.

 

[The Big Dog]

I eat meat. I have zero problems with Dessi's argument. I actually agree with her on that point. I do not think she is either in effect or intentionally dehumanizing retarded people. But honestly I wouldn't care so long as it were simply in the abstract and for the sake of argument, which it is. I do not believe that Dessi is begging the question. I'm not going to go back through the thread to try to understand your assertion. So I apologize for that. If you would like to make the case again I would entertain that but understand if you don't. JMO.

Well all her arguments are based on the principle of equality, which is what she would have to establish in the first place.

Further, if you don't think that equating mentally handicapped people with animals is dehumanizing to those people, I am at a loss as to how to explain it any more clearly. I think it is ridiculously offensive.

 

[Belz...]

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.

To be fair they are talking about animal suffering, something plants cannot do. So, so long as they don't talk about a right to live, they may exclude plants.

How they can exclude ants, however, requires a bit more mental gymnastics. Of course, bunnies and calves and deers and polar bears are cute...

 

[Belz...]

That seems to clash with this:

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— Ingrid Newkirk, “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

And those skinny, starved, scared wild cows surely have a better quality of life.

Who's being naive, now ?



Humans are not like other animals. Or have you failed to notice ?

Do you extend the same understanding to plant life ?

You seem to be so dead-set against eating meat that you don't seem to have a particular justification for your position. First, let's try this :

- Because it uses up a lot of ressources
- Because when done in excess it can lead to health problems
- Because it amounts to slavery
- Because of the suffering caused to animals
- Other

Please tell me which of the above is a reason for your objection to eating meat.

Second :

- Animals do it, why shouldn't I ?
- I've gotta eat something
- They taste good
- We can keep the suffering to a minimum
- Humans are omnivores and need to eat meat as well
- Mind your own damn business

Please tell me why each of the above counters are not good responses to your objection.

Third, do you consider that a lion is immoral when killing its prey ?

Dessi, I'd like an answer to at least some of my points, please.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's a fairly important issue, not primarily for lobsters, but for shrimp and crayfish. I wasn't able to find neuron counts for them, but I'm guessing that crayfish are about like lobsters and that shrimp, if anything, are simpler.

And adorable.

 

[RandFan]

Well all her arguments are based on the principle of equality, which is what she would have to establish in the first place.

No. I've read Singer's book Animal liberation so perhaps I have some advantage, however, her argument is based on the principle of "equal consideration of interests". His argument is logically sound.

Further, if you don't think that equating mentally handicapped people with animals is dehumanizing to those people, I am at a loss as to how to explain it any more clearly. I think it is ridiculously offensive.

Emphasis mine. My niece is mentally handicapped. I love her dearly and it has broken my heart often to think that I live in a world that could be so cruel to someone so important to me.

I'm trying to follow the principles of charity and that includes the avoidance of accusations of fallacy. So I will avoid that here. I would ask you to be more careful in your choice of argument or voicing of opinion. I take this issue and the issue of the handicapped very seriously. I would resent such further aspersions.

If anything Dessi cares deeply for all creatures who can experience pain and suffering. I find her to be a very moral person on this subject. I may disagree with her about the fundamental question but I would find it vulgar to disparage her in that fashion.

We don't need to do that. I have many hundreds of posts arguing that killing animals for the purpose of consumption is not per se immoral and I've largely done that without browbeating, ad hominem or appeal to emotion or shame.

*"Those people", really?

 

[Furcifer]

How they can exclude ants, however, requires a bit more mental gymnastics. Of course, bunnies and calves and deers and polar bears are cute...

Hey, I had a clutch of Chameleons (furcifer pardalis) that were adorable. And I've raised a few baby pink toe tarantula's that were equally cute.

The problem is there is some good research that suggests we are predisposed to liking miniature versions of just about everything. It's hard to argue with that when they're selling baby bulldogs for $3500.

 

[Furcifer]

Anyone seen a live human birth and something hatch out of an egg? Which is more "adorable"?

 

[sgtbaker]

Anyone seen a live human birth and something hatch out of an egg? Which is more "adorable"?

Of course watching my own baby being born was spectacular but I've seen geckos right out of the egg and they are pretty darn cute. I've also seen chicks and ducklings hatch and it was about a 9.5 on the "awe" scale.

 

[Estellea]

Many groups have done wrong for what they believe is the greater good; saying that doesn't bring anyone back to life. And ALF, ELF and SHAC have committed crimes against humans, not just property regardless of their "principles".

What you're saying is meaningless; blabber. Yes, many groups, including, I'm sure, Neo-Nazis, but that says nothing anything against the principles of (say) the ALF.

Of course you need it to be meaningless blabber to keep yourself in the realm of denial. The actions and principles of ALF are not consistent as they commit acts of terrorism upon humans and property. Do you wish to keep denying this?

FTFY. This is a specious argument; all of these hypotheticals do not change the facts on the ground, which are animal testing is still being performed. Drug development is still using animal models and you, and your loved ones, are benefiting by using them.

You seem bent on demonstrating yourself incompetent at each turn. We have benefited from research tested on humans without informed consent. We have benefited from animal testing that would no longer be considered legal. You fail at escaping the sunk cost fallacy because you just want to chant hypocrite.

Yea yea, lalalala I can't heeeaaar you. I'll make the benevolent assumption that you don't understand how this works. All of the drugs, biologicals and medical devices that help to keep you and your loved ones with a quality of life from relieving a headache to treating a chronic disorder or preventing/treating infectious diseases have been legally tested on animals. Your purchase of them continues to fund the next generation of drugs, biologicals and medical devices, which are tested on animals. It's a sunk cost only if no more animal research is performed and that isn't happening. Thus, you are a hypocrite for continuing to purchase products that have been tested on animals and fund present and future research and development of products that are/will be tested on animals. And this probably includes many of the soaps, shampoos and other vanity products you and your family purchase too, unless of course, you make your own.

Este

 

[The Big Dog]

No. I've read Singer's book Animal liberation so perhaps I have some advantage, however, her argument is based on the principle of "equal consideration of interests". His argument is logically sound.

My niece is mentally handicapped. I love her dearly and it has broken my heart often to think that I live in a world that could be so cruel to someone so important to me.

I'm trying to follow the principles of charity and that includes the avoidance of accusations of fallacy. So I will avoid that here. I would ask you to be more careful in your choice of argument or voicing of opinion. I take this issue and the issue of the handicapped very seriously. I would resent such further aspersions.

If anything Dessi cares deeply for all creatures who can experience pain and suffering. I find her to be a very moral person on this subject. I may disagree with her about the fundamental question but I would find it vulgar to disparage her in that fashion.

We don't need to do that. I have many hundreds of posts arguing that killing animals for the purpose of consumption is not per se immoral and I've largely done that without browbeating, ad hominem or appeal to emotion or shame.

"equal consideration of interest" is the point under consideration, isn't it? Of course it is and therefore basing arguments on that principle is begging the question. This ain't brain surgery folks.

Can I at least point out the irony of your resentment at me when it is DESSI who is equating the mentally handicapped to animals, not me.

By the way, disparage her in what fashion? Vulgar? what the **** am I reading?

 

[Kid Eager]

Well, after reading 21 pages I'm still an omnivore but have developed an increased aversion to extremism of any ilk.

Thank you, JREF - I consider myself suitably educated.

 

[RandFan]

"equal consideration of interest" is the point under consideration, isn't it? Of course it is and therefore basing arguments on that principle is begging the question. This ain't brain surgery folks.

Can I at least point out the irony of your resentment at me when it is DESSI who is equating the mentally handicapped to animals, not me.

By the way, disparage her in what fashion? Vulgar? what the **** am I reading?

Your first statement is asserted and the premise implies the conclusion. There is no valid argument here. Rhetoric is fine but it shouldn't be the entirety of your argument. Browbeating doesn't help either. To answer your question, no.

 

[citizenzen]

Thus, you are a hypocrite for continuing to purchase products that have been tested on animals and fund present and future research and development of products that are/will be tested on animals. And this probably includes many of the soaps, shampoos and other vanity products you and your family purchase too, unless of course, you make your own.

I'll disagree on this angle ... you're not a hypocrite for purchasing products that have been tested on animals, because reasonably available alternatives may not exist and there is (as far as i understand) no requirement to divulge this kind of information on product labels.

I'd welcome a law that required products to list animal ingredients or testing. It would help me make more informed choices with my purchases. Would you support this too? I'd love to know that my beer wasn't clarified with animal products. Given a choice, I wouldn't buy one that was. But until that information is made available to consumers, how can they make an informed choice?

A decade ago vegan products were far harder to come by. Today, they are more plentiful, more affordable and more available. Just as organic fruits products have become more popular, I believe vegan and animal-friendly products will increase in popularity and allow consumers to make choices that more closely coincide with their values.

 

[RandFan]

By the way, disparage her in what fashion?

I explained that already, she is not equating humans to animals. Just because you assert it doesn't make it so.

Vulgar?

Absolutely.

...what the **** am I reading?

I know what you mean.

...mentally handicapped ...those people...

(emphasis mine) I know right? "Those people".

 

[The Big Dog]

Beggiing the question as equating the mentally handicapped is your conclusion but it is also your premise.

I explaine already, she is not equating humans to animals.

Absolutely.

I know what you mean.

Is there a reason you posted two separate responses to my one post? The last one was about your claim that I was browbeating her, did you forget or are you just a hypocrite.

As you do not appear to know what "begging the question" means, looks like we are about done here. Particularly in light of your cherry picked comment at the end which was simply special.

Further it takes a special type of white knight to use the term vulgar, so thumbs up champ!

Oh wait, I missed your comment "I find her to be a very moral person on this subject." Oh, well ends the discussions then! ^^ rolls eyes^^

 

[qayak]

I explained that already, she is not equating humans to animals. Just because you assert it doesn't make it so.

Actually, she did equate humans to animals when she stated meat eaters were being consistent if they based their willingness to slaughter animals on intelligence and awareness because some handicapped humans have low intelligence and awareness but we wouldn't slaughter them.

Of course that claim fails but she did equate them.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, she did equate humans to animals when she stated meat eaters were being consistent if they based their willingness to slaughter animals on intelligence and awareness because some handicapped humans have low intelligence and awareness but we wouldn't slaughter them.

Of course that claim fails but she did equate them.

No. With all due respect it is not equating them. I know you think it is and I know you think it fails but no and no. Now, you and I can simply disagree or we could have a discussion and I will tell you why I disagree and you can argue against me. I'm happy to do that. If you know you are right and there is no point then I understand. FTR: I once held your position. I'm still a meat eater but I understand singer's argument and I don't think you do. Regardless of what you think of him, Singer is no light weight to logical argument but is very respected by folks like Shermer and Dawkins, both of whom eat meat.

Let me know if you would like that discussion.

 

[RandFan]

Is there a reason you posted two separate responses to my one post? The last one was about your claim that I was browbeating her, did you forget or are you just a hypocrite.

As you do not appear to know what "begging the question" means, looks like we are about done here. Particularly in light of your cherry picked comment at the end which was simply special.

Further it takes a special type of white knight to use the term vulgar, so thumbs up champ!

Oh wait, I missed your comment "I find her to be a very moral person on this subject." Oh, well ends the discussions then! ^^ rolls eyes^^

Very well played sir. One must usually go to facebook or myspace to find high school level trash talk and argument by assertion.

As you do not appear to know what "begging the question" means...

As I stated precisely how you did so using the definition then I would suggest you go look in the mirror.

 

[Westwall]

My bias tempts me to accept the study at face value. The skeptic in me wants you to cite the source.

I don't read Japanese so I took his word for it. However, if you contact the Meiji College I am sure they can hook you up with it.

http://www.gradschools.com/program-...-oriental-medicine/oriental-medicine-185579_1