Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

Valuing human life over animal live is not just instinctual. It is universally cultural and societal. As culture/society has a big say in morality, I tend to disagree with your assessment.

There ain't nothing wrong with disagreeing.

But there is something wrong with saying "ain't".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just another silly post, sport?

me: nice straw men
You: what straw men
me: these: "quotes"
you: I wuz jest bein' "silly"
me: oh, you were being "silly."
you: Oookay then.

Worthless thread is more worthless than I could have imagined.

Again, condescension noted. And yes, they were designed to be outrageous, but that does not make them straw men. Here what you have written:

Oh, let me AGAIN explain why your obvious, "silly" (your label, not mine) characterizations of your opponents' arguments mischaracterize the arguments, as opposed to just showing you, which I just did, and which you whined away.

But I've learned something rock solid here, folks. That is pointing out glaring logical fallacies are "labels."

Gotcha!

/his point was that they were silly logical fallacies. lulz. He just typed that, that is *********** hilarious.

It appears you feel that you have already explained why you thought my scenarios were not analogous, let's look back further:

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Seriously, because this entire thread is irritating enough already.

Here is a great definition of the fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of it.

Here is a silly straw man argument:

"1. Survival: A grandma gets in my way at the grocery store so I pepper spray her. But see, those sausages are food which is necessary for my survival!"

Then later you made some silly comparison about "I have to biological capability to sire children. Therefore I am entitled to rape this woman." which is a straw man, an appeal to emotion, false analogy etc.

But I have wasted more than enough time on your defensiveness about what you obviously thought was a clever post. You don't think they were straw man, good for you, sport!

Here you were just repeating your original claim, and haphazardly tossing more logic terms in. Again, no explanation.

So really, if you are going to insist that I was being fallacious, explain why.

Let me make it easy for you. Here are the original paragraphs:

1. Survival: A grandma gets in my way at the grocery store so I pepper spray her. But see, those sausages are food which is necessary for my survival! The more interesting problem with this is whether we consider survival a relevant moral criteria. This needs to be previously established or agreed upon. But this can be sidestepped because the situation is so clearly not necessary because of our abundance of alternatives that will allow our survival. I'll bring up the Jains again, because they are pretty kick-***.

2. Omnivore: Some people wave this as a title of enormous weight, but don't see it. Our biology has the capability to derive nutrition from animals. So? In what way does this connect to whether or not I can slit a cows throat? I just don't see it. I have to biological capability to sire children. Therefore I am entitled to rape this woman. I just don't see any connection. I've yet to meet a vegan that stated my digestion of animal protein was the moral dilemma.

1. This survival argument, as I read it, goes like:

A. Humans need meat to survive.
B. Survival is the greatest Good.
C. I can set aside the morality of animal slaughter and eat meat to survive.

I noted B was unestablished and that A is not definitive, as we have plenty of alternative options for survival. My analogy had a needless harm to obtain a requirement for survival. You will note my criticism after the analogy applied to the original argument, and the analogy as well.

2. For this the argument is:

A. Humans have the biological capacity to digest meat.
B. Following our biological design overrides moral claims.
C. Animal slaughter and consumption is not wrong.

I wanted to show that B is a hugely suspect claim, and that there is no connection to the violent act of C.

Now, your challenge, if you choose to back up your claims, is to show how my reading of the two arguments are wrong, or show how I was using some other flaw in the analogies that did not apply to the original arguments to try to disprove the original arguments.

That is to say, not all analogies are strawmen. It is only when the author takes down the analogy on a point that has no relevance to the original argument that it is fallacious.

For your claim of false analogy, you will have to attack whether my analogies were relevant. An analogy can be different in many ways so long as it remains similar for the topic at hand (For here, the proposed moral guidelines).

As for appeal to emotion, you would have to show I was depending on an emotional reaction to reject the analogies, and not their similar (il)logic.

Begin!

 

[Belz...]

I'm not inclined to respond to people* who just want to get a rise out of me, other people write more interesting posts.

You are unable to determine my intentions. My questions were, as usual, quite honest. And "interesting" has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to understand your position and trying to respond with my own.

By not answering the hard questions, it is you who are uninterestering.

 

[Belz...]

Really, think about it. You're a firefighter, you storm into a building, you find a child in a room, you need to get the hell out right now. Do you sit and think, "hmmmm, what if there's two children in a room down the hall? Do I sacrifice one to save the other two? What would Jesus do?" NO! You grab the kid and get the hell out. What if you find the dog first? You grab the dog and get the hell out. What if you find both? You hold the dog in one arm in the kid in the other and you get the hell out.

But that isn't "flipping a coin".

Guess what? I refine my thoughts over time, I change my opinions about a lot of stuff, sometimes I need a good night of sleep to look at things with a fresh perspective. Forgive me actually responding to criticism.

No need to get into a hissy fit. Your answer simply does not correspond to your previous one, with no indication that you consider it to be a change of opinion. You could have said "well, I might have been snarky with my 'flip a coin' answer."

 

[Belz...]

Furcifer's response was actually pretty mellow.

Serisouly, Dessi, you think this is "bashing" ? I respectfully (really) suggest that you grow a bit of a thicker skin.

In fact, perhaps that's why you thought my posts weren't worth answering.

 

[Dessi]

Serisouly, Dessi, you think this is "bashing" ? I respectfully (really) suggest that you grow a bit of a thicker skin.

I could do that, I can also take breaks from posting when the forum is harshing my mellow, definitely not post in a sour mood, stop posting after bedtime, post less often at work, understand that I don't "owe" anyone a response, ignore people who are just trying to get a rise out of me. All great suggestions.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and about that last one: assuming you can tell which is which, that is.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yes, they were designed to be outrageous, but that does not make them straw men.

"It is only when the author takes down the analogy on a point that has no relevance to the original argument that it is fallacious."

Hmm, "outrageous" (your "label" not mine) claims of pepper spraying old women and rape are relevant then you are saying?

Interesting. By the way, I giggled when you rewrote your analogies to completely remove the obvious fallacies.

"Look my logic is rock *********** solid when I exchange the obvious fallacious arguments with a couple more that are more subtle."

Who can tell me what the fallacies are in the following:

"C. I can set aside the morality of animal slaughter and eat meat to survive.

....

B. Following our biological design overrides moral claims."

Begin!

/begin, that is hilarious!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..... ignore people who are just trying to get a rise out of me. ....

As Belz suggested, the items you listed as " bashing ' were nothing more than people disagreeing with you.

When you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, then your posts become proselytizing rhetoric, and leave nothing for discussion.

 

[RandFan]

Serisouly, Dessi, you think this is "bashing" ? I respectfully (really) suggest that you grow a bit of a thicker skin.

I know exactly what you mean. From time to time I refer people to www.mylittlepony.com.

However, I know what it is like to be hounded by someone who will not back off and will not consider my points. I've been here 10 years now and I can give as good as I get. I'm not against spirited debate but I tire of people who are incapable of at least acknowledging a premise or two but just seek to be confrontational.

I DON'T think that you fit that description. I can't speak for Dessi. I find you witty, substantive and able to get an opposing point. At least that has been my experience.

 

[varwoche]

I take Buddhist approach myself (I know, hell of a thing to admit to on a sceptics forum), all life involves causing death, it is an inextricable part of life, the middle way though is to consciously try to avoid causing death, harm or suffering but that when you do to be fully mindful of the experience. So, in you situation, my ethical choice would be to try and minimise the impact my hiking caused on the spiders and spider-webs I encountered, but when harm is inadvertently caused to say a little prayer and continue on my way, mindful of the suffering I have caused.

But if I were to consciously try to avoid causing death, simple, I'd just walk on the street. Instead I consciously cause death, for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy the forest.

 

[Belz...]

I know exactly what you mean. From time to time I refer people to www.mylittlepony.com.

However, I know what it is like to be hounded by someone who will not back off and will not consider my points. I've been here 10 years now and I can give as good as I get. I'm not against spirited debate but I tire of people who are incapable of at least acknowledging a premise or two but just seek to be confrontational.

I DON'T think that you fit that description. I can't speak for Dessi. I find you witty, substantive and able to get an opposing point. At least that has been my experience.

Thank you, RandFan, and it's mutual.

Your cheque's in the mail.

But more seriously, I can be confrontational because I tend to react aggressively to stupidity in all its forms. Now, I'm not saying that Dessi's posts are stupid or that it applies to this thread, but I'm far from immune to making substanceless posts.

That said, I strongly disagree with vegans in general because they try to make a moral (and not objective) argument that, ultimately, they feel everybody else should agree with. I'm trying to discern exactly where Dessi stands on all this, but unfortunately she has apparently marked me as a troll.

 

[Estellea]

A couple of thoughts ...

One, If you haven't already, you should provide a link to this "brutally bludgeoning a scientist". I don't recall this incident, and would be interested in following it up.

I did post a link earlier but here is another:

In February, 2001, SHAC activist David Blenkinsop and two other masked assailants severely beat HLS's managing director Brian Cass with bats in England; a passer-by who interceded was sprayed in the face with tear gas. Kevin Kjonaas responded to the incident by saying, "I don't shed any tears for Brian Cass. He is responsible for 500 animals agonizing and dying every day at Huntingdon."

Two, you'd be hard-pressed to not find extremists on any issue as emotionally charged as animal rights. But you're letting the position of the extremist override all other concerns.

For instance, in my estimation, far more abortion doctors have been killed than scientists who test animals, however, if I were in a discussion with a pro-life advocate, I wouldn't focus the bulk of my discussion on those acts of extremism. There would be plenty of other aspects of the issue to talk about beyond that. I'd personally find it much more interesting to delve into the questions about conflicting rights and personhood than merely ask over and over, "So ... do you think it's okay to kill abortion doctors?"

It seems to me that you're putting way too much emphasis on the acts of an extreme few and haven't show any capability to move beyond what I believe most people would agree are inappropriate acts. No scientist should be bludgeoned over animal testing. No buildings should be burned. There are far better ways to affect change than to commit violent acts.

I hope that helps to clear things up.

You raise interesting points however I would ask you how do you divorce the extremist, illegal, destructive and terrorist acts from the legal and tenable accomplishments of animal rights groups? These groups act in concert with one another and their support, if not acclaim of heinous acts of violence and the individuals who commit them overshadow the legitimate issues that they wish to address. For example Hamas has undertaken many benevolent endeavours. Can we define Hamas by just those acts?

Este

 

[KuriousOrange]

Most people, if they think they're right about something will try and tell others about it especially if something important is concerned like health, wealth or life & death. This is what vegans do, this is what christians do, this is what scientists do...The only difference is how it's done. Telling someone politely is one thing, telling someone who doesn't want to listen is another, but hounding them about it, calling them immoral,subhuman,sinful,evil,stupid,delusional - whatever - is something quite different. People don't like being told what to do and this is where a lot of vegans fail - as do a lot of skeptics.

I don't believe vegans/vegetarians are wrong; there are problems with the meat & dairy industry and a lot of their points are valid, but the way they deliver their message is often confrontational and arrogant, as are the responses a lot of the time.

People will always eat mean, and people will oppose them. Neither are wrong depending how you look at it.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you, RandFan, and it's mutual.

Your cheque's in the mail.

But more seriously, I can be confrontational because I tend to react aggressively to stupidity in all its forms. Now, I'm not saying that Dessi's posts are stupid or that it applies to this thread, but I'm far from immune to making substanceless posts.

That said, I strongly disagree with vegans in general because they try to make a moral (and not objective) argument that, ultimately, they feel everybody else should agree with. I'm trying to discern exactly where Dessi stands on all this, but unfortunately she has apparently marked me as a troll.

Dude, someday we need to go out for a thick steak and a cold beer.

 

[citizenzen]

But if I were to consciously try to avoid causing death, simple, I'd just walk on the street. Instead I consciously cause death, for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy the forest.

Okay. A Buddhist understands that people make choices for themselves and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences for those choices.

If you want to kill spiders "for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy the forest" then that's where you're at right now.

 

[bit_pattern]

That said, I strongly disagree with vegans in general because they try to make a moral (and not objective) argument that, ultimately, they feel everybody else should agree with.

As someone toying with the idea of going from vegetarian to full-blown vegan I would say that I would make the choice based on health (see the Harvard thread) , ethics (I believe animals and humans should be equals), karma (I happen to subscribe to Buddhism as a worldview so accept the logic of karma, my choice not something I'm interested in arguing over), and environmentalism (methane etc).

I believe that one day humans will likely have diff rent moral values that closer align to the vegan view of how we relate to animals than today.

But I in no way think that anyone should have to think like I do, I've made a value judgement that is mine and mine alone. I'll argue the case from my perspective but I don't think anyone should agree with me. People need to make their own value judgements in everything they do in life. I'm not afraid to say that I think such a diet would be healthier or better for the world but I can't make anyone believe what i do.

I hope the vast majority of people who adopt a particular dietary choice shares the same sentiment and that the view you have of vegan/vegetarians is mostly stereotyping.

 

[citizenzen]

That said, I strongly disagree with vegans in general because they try to make a moral (and not objective) argument that, ultimately, they feel everybody else should agree with.

I really don't care if you (or anybody else) agree(s) with me or not.

 

[varwoche]

Okay. A Buddhist understands that people make choices for themselves and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences for those choices.

If you want to kill spiders "for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy the forest" then that's where you're at right now.

Thanks. (not sarcastic) But isn't this where we're at?

Also to be clear, I don't want to kill the spiders. However my wish to walk in the forest outweighs my wish not to kill them.

 

[bit_pattern]

But if I were to consciously try to avoid causing death, simple, I'd just walk on the street. Instead I consciously cause death, for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy the forest.

What died to create the street?

Life is a moral quandary, death and suffering are inevitable, no matter what path you tread. The choice of which path is your and yours alone. I've hiked a bit, not in North America, but I'm having a hard time imagining a forest so overcome by spiders that you can't be mindful enough to move around without carelessly taking life. I've hiked in the Amazon, definitely the most bio diverse environment I've experienced and, apart from mosquitos, ticks and leeches, I managed to get by without killing anything, as far as I know.

But I have the same problem walking on the pavement at night during the rain, I inevitably hear the sickening crunch of a snail. I'm not going to not walk to the shops at night just because I might kill a snail but if I see a snail I won't purposefully step on it.

Does that make sense?