Why vegans are simply better people

[Unabogie]

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.

I would actually like to hear that discussion. Can you expand upon how you understand Singer's argument? Clearly I am already vegan, but I don't spend a lot of time reading philosophical arguments on the subject. As I wrote earlier, for me it's a simple matter that if I don't NEED to kill animals for food, and killing animals is worse than not killing them (at least as far as most people would agree) then as long as I can sustain myself happily it's the right thing to do. Now that I'm happily vegan I don't see a reason to go back. But I'd still love to hear your take on it.

 

[tsig]

You could. But again, the meat-eaters exploit both the farm workers and those who produce meat.

Once again that word "and" pops up.

Meat eaters are pretty much teh Evil then.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

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

Those people who are being specifically referred to? Perhaps you are being a little oversensitive to the word?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

They said that about the hula-hoop

All kidding aside, I can see room for expansion in the veg/vegan demographic. I just don't see it ever coming close to being a majority. It will take more than "morality" to get people to give up meat. Things being what they are it would be unwise to preclude any paradigm shifts, but I would not bet or hold my breath on it.

(perhaps "First Contact" will be that paradigm shift )

 

[Unabogie]

Meat eaters are pretty much teh Evil then.

Yeah, we've been so careful to hide our true feelings by acting polite and engaging in civil discussion, but you've ripped away our cheap facade.

Curse you, tsig! Curse you!

 

[tsig]

Correct, however, these are the byproducts of virtue. One other byproduct is feces that doesn't smell and the ability to put one's pants on both legs at once. I wish I had that kind of virtue. Well, first I want X-ray vision to heighten my enjoyment of hanging out at the mall and watching all the pretty girls. Then I want that kind of virtue.

Imagination is better that X-ray vision.

 

[Furcifer]

As I wrote earlier, for me it's a simple matter that if I don't NEED to kill animals for food, and killing animals is worse than not killing them (at least as far as most people would agree) then as long as I can sustain myself happily it's the right thing to do.

It's impossible to sustain yourself without contributing to KILLING of animals. It's a demonstrable fact.

 

[RandFan]

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

No. But that's fine. I won't hound you about it but I'm sure you can understand that a source isn't worth much if it can't be examined. I get lots of sources that turn out to be nonsense. Not saying this one is. I just don't know.

 

[citizenzen]

All kidding aside, I can see room for expansion in the veg/vegan demographic. I just don't see it ever coming close to being a majority.

I'll agree with you there. It's a bit too extreme for most people (me included).

 

[Belz...]

It's impossible to sustain yourself without contributing to KILLING of animals. It's a demonstrable fact.

Or at least the killing of something.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I would actually like to hear that discussion. Can you expand upon how you understand Singer's argument? Clearly I am already vegan, but I don't spend a lot of time reading philosophical arguments on the subject. As I wrote earlier, for me it's a simple matter that if I don't NEED to kill animals for food, and killing animals is worse than not killing them (at least as far as most people would agree) then as long as I can sustain myself happily it's the right thing to do. Now that I'm happily vegan I don't see a reason to go back. But I'd still love to hear your take on it.

It isn't coming!!!

I break out the popcorn (a vegetable) and then nothing happens???

I feel like General Patton from the movie:

"It's like a planet spinning off into the Universe. A chance like this won't come along for a thousand years. An entire world at war, and I'm left out of it? God will NOT permit this to happen! I am going, to be ALLOWED, to fulfill my destiny! His will be done..."

 

[RandFan]

Those people who are being specifically referred to? Perhaps you are being a little oversensitive to the word?

Perhaps. If I had to take a bet I wouldn't bet that I was. Thanks.

 

[Stout]

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.

Me too. It's pretty difficult to refute any of the pro vegan arguments without saying my KFC Double Down and my cold dead hands

 

[Unabogie]

It's impossible to sustain yourself without contributing to KILLING of animals. It's a demonstrable fact.

I presume you're talking about animals that die in harvesting of vegetables? As has been pointed out, those animals die when you grow vegetables to feed to cows.

But I'll concede the point and reiterate: it's the unnecessary suffering that ended when I went veg. Insects die when I drive my car. But that doesn't mean I should swerve to hit kids and pets on purpose just "because". For me it's about minimizing suffering. I think the stats back me up on this. Going veg greatly reduces suffering. It's a demonstrable fact.

 

[The Big Dog]

Very well played sir. One must usually go to facebook or myspace to find high school level trash talk and argument by assertion.
As I stated precisely how you did so using the definition then I would suggest you go look in the mirror.

And I'd have to got to the Port of Miami when the big cruise ships are taking off to see that level of hand waving.

On the other hand it appears that pointing out that someone is begging the question is now begging the question. That is a clever argument, I'll have to keep my eyes on you!

Anyway, your posts remind me of a great line from a pretty good movie: "You are the Vulgarian, you ****!"

 

[qayak]

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.

Yes, I would like that discussion but you are wrong on THIS discussion. I am not referring to what Singer said, I am referring to what Dessi wrote in her posts, specifically, one in reply to me.

That argument fails on the grounds that humans are given rights on the basis of their being human not on the basis of their awareness or intelligence.

Animals on the other hand are given rights on the basis of their awareness and intelligence regardless of how they rate in regard to the lowest of human intelligence and awareness.

I refer you to Dessi's post # 597 where she says:

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.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I would like that discussion but you are wrong on THIS discussion.

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.

I agree with her (BTW: I don't agree with your characterization of her argument). And so would Singer. So, are we game?

That argument fails on the grounds that humans are given rights on the basis of their being human not on the basis of their awareness or intelligence.

BTW: I don't agree with either proposition and I would be surprised if Dessi did either but I can't speak for her.

 

[RandFan]

On the other hand it appears that pointing out that someone is begging the question is now begging the question.

No, that's a straw man.

 

[citizenzen]

Me too. It's pretty difficult to refute any of the pro vegan arguments without saying my KFC Double Down and my cold dead hands

But I think that you and others misinterpret the motive behind many of the vegan arguments presented here. I believe it has less to do with trying to get you to change your diet than it does with coming to so consensus on what is reality.

I don't care if you eat meat or not. I'm married and do almost all of the cooking. If my wife wants a steak, salmon, chicken or turkey I'll happily prepare it for her. Each individual makes the choice of what they put in their mouth. I certainly don't want the responsibility of making that choice for anybody but myself.

But this issue is like Climate Change. There are some people who don't want to admit the quantifiable facts behind the issue because of personal or political bias. What are those facts? It takes more land, water, resources and energy to produce an equal amount of animal vs. vegetable protein, and that a diet without meat can be a healthy and sustainable diet for life. If we could just acknowledge the reality behind those points, it would go a long way to establishing a rational, meaningful dialog.

 

[qayak]

I agree with her (BTW: I don't agree with your characterization of her argument). And so would Singer.

You can say what you want, I am just going on what she said on so many occasions.

So, are we game?

Absolutely! This thread or another one? Is it a vegan vs meat eater debate or an animal rights debate? I prefer the animal rights one. I'm for them.

BTW: I don't agree with either proposition and I would be surprised if Dessi did either but I can't speak for her.

I wonder why we call them "human rights" then. Would make more sense to call them "smart people rights" or "Intelligent and aware animal rights."