Slaver? Infanticide? Skinning cats alive? Wait a second here, dude! sadhatter wasn't commenting on any of those things.
With all due respect, you don't have the background on the subject to understand what sadhatter was commenting on.
I made a counter-argument to his or her implicit appeal to the primacy of social contract in law.
What's that? You don't understand what I just said?
Exactly.
Do a little reading on Objectivism, and come back.
He was commenting on whether or not people should eat meat!
No, he or she was not- he or she was making a political and philosophical assertion about self determination of rational agents in society without interference based on the moral principles of others.
I believe you would call that a "slippery slope" argument in any case.
Not if you had any idea what the conversation is about, no.
However, I find it morally repugnant that a vegetarian is going around lecturing meat eaters about how morally corrupt it is to eat animals.
I haven't seen anybody here doing that.
I have paraphrased some arguments that vegetarians make (noting that they are vegetarian arguments). Are you assuming that I'm vegetarian or something?
If so: Don't make assumptions.
We do have canine teeth for a reason, ya know.....
Others have addressed the absurdity of this argument.
I don't think I have myself made any strong arguments for vegetarianism here; rather pointed out and discussed some inconsistencies (which most people here, meat lovers and vegetarians alike recognize).
If you have read this thread and choose not to understand them, then in that sense- yes- you are peddling 'speciesist' (as I've seen it called) pseudo-scientific woo.
Any vegetarian is right to call you on your bad logic and intellectually dishonest rationalizations. Anybody who respects and values logic and rationality is right to call you one it, vegetarian or not.
And I'll call you on it. Every self respecting skeptic here will. I think you need to reflect a bit on this, and consider whether rationalizing your cognitive dissonance away, or being a skeptic, is more important to you. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
An honest meat eater says simply: "Yeah, it's not a moral thing to do- but it's convenient and I like the taste, and moral perfection isn't exactly a big part of my life as long as I'm not worse than the next guy. I'm OK with morally average."
Several people in this thread have, more or less, said that.
Humans were actually DESIGNED to eat meat.
More Woo peddling.
Nobody was DESIGNED.
Learn a thing or two about evolution. Then learn a thing or two about logic.
Some people are, such as myself.
That's not true. All major amino acids are available cheaper in forms which do not derive from animal products.
For example, a tiny 30 gram scoop of synthesized creatine, costing fifty U.S. cents, contains more than in
seven kilograms of steak.
How much does seven kilograms of steak cost? Hmm? Can you even
eat seven kilograms of steak in a day?
No, I don't think you can.
Body building using the appropriate protein supplements costs pennies on the dollar. Your attempts at making excuses fall on educated ears- don't bother.
None of the arguments you've made in any of your posts has been true or logical.
Anybody can be vegetarian if they care enough- those of us who aren't either don't care enough (which is each person's right), or don't quite have the will power.
The notion that we need cannibalism to reduce the amount of meat people choose to eat is ridiculous. We are not biologically bound to eating meat.
And it would be far better to use human corpses as fertiliser for the growing of nut trees etc.
This is true- it is not needed to reduce other meat consumption. But it is one way to do so. Actually asking people to eat less meat seems unlikely to work.
IMO we should all strive to consume less meat/other products that are morally problematic every year. If it's gradual, maybe nobody even notices. Quitting cold turkey (no pun intended) is far from easy- though some people (admirably) manage to do it.
But how do we go about that as a society?
It's an interesting problem. Meat seems very ingrained into culture and way of life- and it certainly is all about culture.
I'd be OK with it if it was a good argument, but YOU shouldn't eat X because I value it never struck me as a very good argument.
But... you made the argument. That you aren't OK with somebody's diet if it affects something you value. (paraphrasing)
Are you recanting that statement?
Or do you insist it's OK for you to violate other people's values, but not OK for them to violate yours? (I'm hoping you're better than that)
Bear in mind, in a social sense, it not being OK to do X because it goes against certain values is a very important concept. Raw social contract as a basis for society without ethics is not pretty. That might not be a road you want to go down.
