Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

I'm not here to win arguments or stroke my ego.

We haven't always agreed, but I know you'll actually contribute to the conversation instead of treating it like a video game.

Anybody who says they'd "pwned" somebody in a forum is probably more suited to playing a first-person shooter, than having a rational discussion and sharing their thoughts and experiences with others.

 

[RandFan]

We haven't always agreed, but I know you'll actually contribute to the conversation instead of treating it like a video game.

Anybody who says they'd "pwned" somebody in a forum is probably more suited to playing a first-person shooter, than having a rational discussion and sharing their thoughts and experiences with others.

Thank you. You too BTW. We've all had our egos bruised and felt dismissed or ignored. At least I have. I'm just not interested in that. And I think this is the wrong forum for that.

 

[cyborg]

Thanks cyborg. I think you have vastly oversimplified thousands of years of social and moral progress.

No I haven't.

I never tried to define away existence.

I didn't ay you did.

I apologize but I don't find that your post advances the discussion or offers any insight.

Well let me state it again more simply - because it really is very simple: yes humans give rights to other humans because they are human and it's human centric because we're human.

The whole thing about animal rights is projecting human qualities onto chosen other life-forms.

If morals were entirely arbitrary from society to society then I could find your post somewhat contributory.

I said nothing about morals being entirely arbitrary.

To get more out of my posts I first suggest reading the actual content of them rather than the content you are putting into them.

But the truth is that the Jews were not the only ones who had rules regarding killing others, stealing, and being honest. The golden rule (or something similar) has been fairly popular.

I think you'll find I talked about the genesis of social mechanisms earlier in the thread.

I also made the point that what you chose to empathise with and therefore what you are likely to collaborate with rather than exploit is flexible.

This very simple point about the way human emotions works seems to be being lost here; yes, it's harder to kill things if you make them more human like because that's the way empathy works. It's why we have the word and the process "dehumanisation".

This idea that allowance of something like torturing and then slow roasting babies over a fire is just as likely as protecting babies is nonsense.

Really depends whose babies doesn't it? But let's ignore human history and also inject a load of things here I didn't say or imply shall we?

Given advances in cognitive neruoscience and psychology and the understanding of social species we have a very good idea as to why. Isn't science cool?

Yes it is.

Oh, by the way it may have escaped your attention but there is a rather vocal number of people who make a bit of a noise over what they consider the murder of babies and others consider the removal of unwanted foetuses.

Hmm.... hmm.... hmm..., I wonder why people might have such divergent attitudes towards the same events?

So yeah, we could decide that slavery would be cool or genital mutilation would be a fun thing to do. However, there are very good reasons why that is not likely to happen.

Well, do feel free to present them at any point because there are people who have, are and probably will decide those very things so at the moment I have to say that simply saying they aren't isn't really convincing.

 

[The Big Dog]

We haven't always agreed, but I know you'll actually contribute to the conversation instead of treating it like a video game.

Anybody who says they'd "pwned" somebody in a forum is probably more suited to playing a first-person shooter, than having a rational discussion and sharing their thoughts and experiences with others.

Uh, Randfan said that in the first place.

Here is how the conversation went.

I pointed out that Dessi was dehumanizing mentally challenged human beings by equating hem to animals.
Randfan claimed she didn't say that
qayak showed demonstratively that she had
Randfan hand waved it away.
I pointed that he had hand waved it away
Randfan sarcastically wrote that he had been "pwned."
Since then he has been going to great lengths to avoid actually substantively addressing qayak's post to my growing amusement.

 

[RandFan]

Well, do feel free to present them at any point because there are people who have, are and probably will decide those very things so at the moment I have to say that simply saying they aren't isn't really convincing.

What has been the trend for slavery in modern liberal democracies? What has been the trend in social and moral progress in industrialized nations? Are we moving more toward societies that are likely to respect individual rights or away?

...yes humans give rights to other humans because they are human and it's human centric because we're human.

I can't find this message in your previous post. My bad I'm sorry. We are also by nature tribalistic. So we only extend rights to those in our society?

Sounds like a naturalistic fallacy. It's our nature. It's what we do. I find that reasoning less than compelling. Why not rape and kill because we by nature are a species that rapes and kills?

 

[Unabogie]

From your birth until the time you became a vegan (or vegetarian - I'm afraid I've missed out a few pages on this thread), your diet included meat etc I presume? If so, I venture to suggest that this gave you good basic health so that the body could cope with lack of such foods?
Just curious.

It's a dark and gloomy day here, so reading through this thread has been an interesting occupation.

I'm not aware of any data that says "what you once ate will sustain you for the rest of your life". If so, I'd love to see some data on this because I've eaten lots of veggies and I'd like to switch over to french fries and beer full time. But if anecdotes are now data, I know lots of vegans who are raising kids as vegans and some of those vegan kids are now grown up. Again, since anecdotes are not very useful, perhaps someone can explain what nutrients can only be found in animal parts and what happens to people who don't get them?

 

[RandFan]

{snip}

I gave you every opportunity. Once more for old time sake. Good bye.

 

[The Big Dog]

I gave you every opportunity. Once more for old time sake. Good bye.

I'm guessing that he is not going to substantively address qayak's post.

 

[Unabogie]

Your existence is necessary?

If not then the unnecessary suffering you cause didn't end when you changed your diet did it?

Can you explain this? I'm not following your reasoning on this. Let's say I used to register a 1000 on the Universal Suffering Scale. By eliminating 50% of the suffering, I now register a 500. Why wouldn't that be a laudable goal if we both agree that suffering should be minimized? Unless you think that is a false premise and that suffering should not be minimized?

 

[Dessi]

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.

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.

Holy wow, wild New Year on this side. Happy 2012 everyone!

I personally think the word "dehumanize" is a loaded, very emotionally charged word. Before even beginning to have a conversation of whether I "dehumanize" handicapped people, you should at least explain why you mean by the term.

I very clearly don't view handicapped people as any more or less human than able-bodied people, they're members of my species with a personality, interests, wants, desires, and feelings of their own. How do you think I'm dehumanizing them? For a more interesting question, do you think I'm advocating treating mentally handicapped people cruelly?

I draw comparisons between animal rights and human rights because I very strongly believe they are one in the same. Arguments against animal rights have a bizarre consequence of excluding a whole class of humans, almost always infants, children, and the severely mentally handicapped. See here:

Yes, animals and mentally similar humans are moral equals. Arguments against animal rights are problematic because they unavoidably carry over to arguments the human rights. For example, if I make an argument that animals have no rights because they aren't rational moral agents, I must concede that mentally similar humans are no more advantaged; if I argue that non-rational humans have rights, I must concede that rationality is not a prerequisite for moral consideration, and such a principle logically carries over to non-human animals. Animal rights and human rights are two sides of the same coin.

Its a funny situation, do we raise animals to the status of non-rational humans, or do we reduce non-rational humans to the status of animals? Both views are consistent, most people simply find the latter one to be profoundly cruel and repugnant.

Its really not that easy to find an "out", a way that allows you to treat animals cruelly but treat non-rational humans as if they were moral agents. The only explanations for this "out" depend directly on speciesism, insisting that species membership endows members of the human species (at the exclusion of all others) with some essential property (a soul, perhaps) which gives humans inherent moral value. Strangely enough, the people making these arguments are perfectly happy to turn their backs on it, they might say they'll consider animal rights if animals were rational enough to fight for them, or they might say aliens who visit earth have some claim to human rights -- its not species membership that accounts for the "essential property", but something else which is inevitably tied to rationality or moral agency. But once we accept this much, we're right back where we started, how do we accounts for the rights of severely mentally handicapped people and infants who lack the prerequisites for that "essential property"? We can't.

So we circle right back around, do we reduce mentally handicapped people to the status of mentally similar animals, or do we raise mentally similar animals to the status of mentally handicapped people? Why do we even value mentally handicapped people in the first place? My best guess is that we only value the severely mentally impaired, as well as infants, because we care about their ability to suffer, feel satisfaction, pain, pleasure -- abilities which are in no way exclusive to many animals who are treated poorly everyday.

That's the point. You can't argue against animal rights without arguing against the rights of a whole class of humans at the same time. You can't argue for human rights without being automatically inclusive to animals.

If my comments are the least bit dehumanizing to anyone, please let me know what you find offensive.

 

[The Big Dog]

Holy wow, wild New Year on this side. Happy 2012 everyone!

I personally think the word "dehumanize" is a loaded, very emotionally charged word. Before even beginning to have a conversation of whether I "dehumanize" handicapped people, you should at least explain why you mean by the term.

I very clearly don't view handicapped people as any more or less human than able-bodied people, they're members of my species with a personality, interests, wants, desires, and feelings of their own. How do you think I'm dehumanizing them? For a more interesting question, do you think I'm advocating treating mentally handicapped people cruelly?

You are dehumanizing them by equating them to animals, I would think that it would be so obvious that it baffles me that it is even a subject of discussion.

See Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.

 

[RandFan]

Holy wow, wild New Year on this side. Happy 2012 everyone!

I personally think the word "dehumanize" is a loaded, very emotionally charged word. Before even beginning to hav e a conversation of whether I "dehumanize" handicapped people, you should at least explain why you mean by the term.

I very clearly don't view handicapped people as any more or less human than able-bodied people, they're members of my species with a personality, interests, wants, desires, and feelings of their own. How do you think I'm dehumanizing them? For a more interesting question, do you think I'm advocating treating mentally handicapped people cruelly?

Welcome back to the party Dessi. I should just have voiced an opinion and let you handle it. You are doing a better job than I.

 

[Dessi]

You are dehumanizing them by equating them to animals, I would think that it would be so obvious that it baffles me that it is even a subject of discussion.

I like to edit my posts about a dozen times after I write them. See updated post.

See Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.

Would you mind quoting the part you find relevant from that study? Also, keep in mind that many articles on dehumanization are written from the perspective that comparisons to humans and animals implies that humans should be reduced to the status of animals, treated poorly and such -- views which only make sense under the presumption that animal cruelty is acceptable. That point is relevant because you're talking to someone who is an animal liberationist with believes whole of animal agriculture and animal experimentation should be categorically abolished, someone who has strong convictions that animal cruelty is definitely not acceptable.

For what its worth, I seem to remember an anecdote told by Peter Singer, I think it was in his book "Rethinking Life and Death" (give me a moment to find the exact page and reference). He's occasionally invited to college campuses to talk about bioethics and the moral status of humans. At one particular campus, he was protested by a handicapped rights group who called him a Nazi, he accused him of wanting to torment and kill people in wheelchairs. Singer allows one of the protesters come on stage and state exactly why they are protesting, the protester explains that Singer is an advocate of infanticide who has no regard to the sensitive lives of handicapped people. Singer explains that he has in fact written on infanticide, that some infants born with such severe defects that these infants will suffer excruciatingly before they eventually expire. Singer holds a very controversial view that its better to painlessly euthanize these infants than draw out their suffering for days or weeks on end. He makes a comment that almost no one knows who Singer is because of his views on euthanasia, but because of his views on animal rights, he's written several books on the subject since the 70s, hundreds of articles in mainstream newspapers and bioethics journals. The protester had no idea, he didn't know Singer was an advocate for animal rights, he didn't know Singers views on infanticide were based on a tremendous and compassionate sensitivity toward suffering. The rights group voluntarily ended their protest.

You're not the first person whose ever criticized me for drawing comparisons between animals and humans. If you have a real, serious argument that I do in fact dehumanize anyone, and more seriously that I've ever advocated treating these people in a cruel manner, I would like to hear it.

 

[Unabogie]

I like to edit my posts about a dozen times after I write them. See updated post.

Can you link to the post in question? This thread is already of epic proportions, so if it gets any bigger we'll need a table of contents.

 

[Dessi]

Can you link to the post in question? This thread is already of epic proportions, so if it gets any bigger we'll need a table of contents.

Linky.

 

[RandFan]

Along with "dehumanizing" it would be nice if someone could explain what is meant by "equating". Is it dehumanizing to point out that humans and rats are mammals? Why is it that sating a fact is dehumanizing and, even if it we're, would that change the truth value of the fact?

Bob: Rats and humans are both placental mammals.
Tim: You just equated rats and humans, THAT'S dehumanizing... I'm telling.

 

[qayak]

I'm not limiting the discussion to "those" rights but rather your statement about rights arising from the state of being human. Given more than 350 years of moral progress since Hume I would think that's a fairly easy one to knock down.

I didn;t say that. I said that humans create rights and give those rights to other humans based on the simple fact that they are human.

So babies (or children) have the right to refuse medical care? Or the right to vote? The right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?

What you are doing here is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No babies do not have ALL the same rights but they have all the basic rights of life, liberty, etc. Children have more and continue to get more until they are adults at which point they have all the same rights.

BTW:

1. Given that A.) the UN charter is recent. B.) codified rights in modern liberal democracies are based on nearly 1,000 years of common law, that B.) few if any rights were based solely on the state of being human?
2. Also, given Hume, would you not agree that an interpretation of the UN charter as "X" from "Y" is in essence the "is-ought" fallacy? I understand that is the way it reads but I don't think any moral philosopher would claim that the UN charter is based on the idea the rights in the charter exist solely because of the state of being human. I think the charter is simply just an ought statement and not an "is" from an "ought" statement. I think the philosophical underpinnings are a bit more complex than that.

This isn't impressive. In order to create an is-ought fallacy, you had to deny what the charter says, speak for Hume and make the claim that you also speak for all moral philosophers. That's a lot of twisting and turning. I'm not convinced simply on the basis of Occam's Razor.

Perhaps you could use the charter to demonstrate that the rights given in it to "all humans" are not given because they are human. Perhaps it is because they all have blue eyes, or black skin, or live in a particular country, or maybe the rights also extend to all animals but there wasn't enough space available on the pages to write it.

The fact is, the charter gives rights to all humans even though the drafters know that not all humans are equal intellectually or in awareness. That in itself is evidence that the only thing required to have these rights is that one is lucky enough to be born human.

Now, if you want to make the intelligence- awareness argument as to why some animals should be granted the equivalent of basic human rights, I agree and support it 100%. I think a very strong case can and should be made. But there are a very limited number of animals that qualify in my opinion. Cattle and swine aren't included.

 

[RandFan]

Along with "dehumanizing" it would be nice if someone could explain what is meant by "equating". Is it dehumanizing to point out that humans and rats are mammals? Why is it that sating a fact is dehumanizing and, even if it we're, would that change the truth value of the fact?

Bob: Rats and humans are both placental mammals.
Tim: You just equated rats and humans, THAT'S dehumanizing... I'm telling.

BTW: In my example above, isn't that ad hominem poisoning the well? It's like accusing E.O. Wilson and Dawkins of being Nazis because they discussed Eugenics. Neither advocated for policies remotely similar to Nazi atrocities but the ad hominem "Eugenics is dehumanizing", didn't change the facts and it delayed the acceptance of scientific principles by as much as a decade.

 

[RandFan]

I didn;t say that. I said that humans create rights and give those rights to other humans based on the simple fact that they are human.

NO you did not. You said nothing about "creating".

Look, this isn't the first that this has come up. I've given you opportunities to clarify.

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.

That is what you said, right? I have tried to find out if being human is the only basis for rights. Remember human therefore "X"? A child is human therefore...

So now, Humans give rights only to other humans because they are human but being human isn't the basis for rights, is that your position?

 

[The Big Dog]

I like to edit my posts about a dozen times after I write them. See updated post.

You edit your posts after people reply to them?