Why vegans are simply better people

[Complexity]

What if the cat was yours and the infant was a complete stranger/belonged to a stranger?

Have I had chocolate recently?

Did my cat recently pee on my bed?

Am I depressed?

Has the kid been screaming near my on a transatlantic flight?

Which one looked at me most recently?

Can I save both if sacrifice myself?

 

[Complexity]

You're right, it has nothing to do with a form of government. It has everything to do with consensus opinion establishing societal norms or even morality.

Your argument is a non-starter. If most people felt there was no differentiating humans from animals there would be more vegetarians and eating meat would be illegal. (or at the very least not what it is today)

I disregard societal norms and set my own ethical standards.

I have no interest in groups of people or in how many people believe something to be true.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I'm just saying I'm skeptical. My first post in this thread was that I'm skeptical that PETA actually supports a lot of the stuff you see in the news. It's purely for shock value and perhaps a way to recruit the most radical people possible.
I think it's possible Dessi believes right now, from the comfort of the hypothetical she would flip a coin, but if the situation was presented to her she would react without thinking to saving the child first. Even if she evaluated the situation briefly and determined it was easier or safer to go for the animal she would invariably go for the child.
That's my opinion, and yes it's based on my own personal experience. I believe from my own experience most of what animal rights activists say is for shock value.

Yeahp. I reckon so. Good incisiveness there, Furc.

Overall I'd say it's an exclusionary tactic and frankly - it works well, it's very tried and true. If a group holds to strict ideals that are perceived as radical by the vast majority, then going over the top a bit with shock value tends to dissuade large numbers of joiners. And as you indicated: That smaller number espousing the publicly proclaimed radical views - some of them may join. Yet the larger the group, the greater the chance for dilution. The shock value tactic keeps the group smaller, tighter - more manageable. It also tends to retain the true believers and cull out the questioners.

 

[qayak]

It has everything to do with consensus opinion establishing societal norms or even morality.

Not really sure I agree with this but I understand what you are getting at. I think however that a consensus opinion is not what is sought when a government decides on laws that reflect the norm of the society they represent.

I think it is a compromise to get the most people possible to agree so that the majority support the law putting pressure on the remaining members who don't to conform.

I also think that the law necessarily reflects the minimum acceptable standard not the apex of thought. Individual members are then free to exercise their own moral beliefs.

In the case of animals rights, that means there is room for people who eat meat and for others to lobby for . . . well . . . the flipping of coins.

 

[Furcifer]

I completely agree.

When the **** hits the fan, nobody really knows how they'll act or what they'll do.

All we're doing here is sharing abstract thoughts.

Hey there you go, we agree on something.

I didn't eat meat for 7 years and enjoyed it. I didn't suffer from malnutrition and was at my heaviest. My diet was considerably more varied than it is today and I cooked much, much more often than I do now. I highly recommend trying it for a few years just for the experience and challenge.

Beyond that, meh.

 

[qayak]

I wish you a long and happy life.

Gee! You could have wished for me to get somethings I haven't already enjoyed. Like a Buggatti Veyron and Claudia Schiffer! I thought we were friends!

 

[Furcifer]

I have no interest in groups of people or in how many people believe something to be true.

Then why are we having this discussion

 

[Complexity]

Then why are we having this discussion

I can't think of a single reason to continue with it.

I'll think I'll talk with other people instead.

 

[Furcifer]

I can't think of a single reason to continue with it.

I'll think I'll talk with other people instead.

Good evening then

 

[Complexity]

Smilie abuse sucks.

 

[Cain]

And you blabbed:
I didn't misconstrue your position at all; you failed to convey and be consistent in your position which vacillated between denial that your groups committed terrorist acts and they do it for a "noble cause".

I want to warn you against such fatuous comments, but then, ought implies can. I've consistently maintained that certain "terrorist" acts are morally justifiable. You are free to try to argue they are not -- and I'm sure your ability to engage ideas is not unlike a cat trying to sing Enya -- but instead your tact has been "terrorism, terrorism, terrorism."

You also want to take a look at your own arguments which consist of logical fallacies, i.e. false analogies and tu quoque. Throwing tea into the Boston harbour to protest taxation without representation is not the same as brutally bludgeoning a scientist because you don't agree with animal testing. Not to mention your sanctimonious self-aggrandisement.

Again, I have consistently maintained that bodily harm against humans (or animals) is not justifiable, yet you insist on attempting to smear me with this very broad brush. And there's a simple reason for it: you can't deal with the arguments at hand.

Oh poor you for having to deal with the Philistines. Would you like a lacto/ovo-free cookie for that? You argued a sunk cost with regards to justifying the use of products tested on animals, not that you don't use them, until conveniently, now:

Once again, you'd rather attack the position you imagine I hold than the one I actually do. The only quote you're able to summon that even deals with animal experimentation is the first one, and you can say nothing against it.

I had no idea your accusations sans evidence were so facile. I thought maybe, perhaps, you were arguing something along the lines of how a good vegan (and her family) benefit via herd immunity from drugs tested on animals. Turns out that's a graduate level seminar compared to soaps and shampoos, which are covered in Veganism 101.

Benefiting from animal testing while simultaneously supporting groups that violently seek to end animal testing is indeed hypocritical.

I suppose you must insist upon this while accusing me (without a cite) of a "tu quoque" fallacy. Call it ironically necessary.

So then, we have vegan groups that want to abolish animal testing, but we can't take them seriously because they're hypocrites...? Ho boy, we're gonna need a new eye-roll emoticon.

I realize you have this whole amateur hour thing going on, but there's really no need to advertise it by signing your posts. With your handle.

 

[Dessi]

Yeahp. I reckon so. Good incisiveness there, Furc.

Overall I'd say it's an exclusionary tactic and frankly - it works well, it's very tried and true. If a group holds to strict ideals that are perceived as radical by the vast majority, then going over the top a bit with shock value tends to dissuade large numbers of joiners. And as you indicated: That smaller number espousing the publicly proclaimed radical views - some of them may join. Yet the larger the group, the greater the chance for dilution. The shock value tactic keeps the group smaller, tighter - more manageable. It also tends to retain the true believers and cull out the questioners.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I think the problem is "if a group holds to strict ideals" is a drastically oversimplified view of the animal rights community. There's no single set of "strict ideals" or even necessarily a single core philosophy underlying the animal rights movement. The fact of the matter is that the "strict ideals" I hold, especially my fondness for Singer, are nowhere near universal; there are plenty of people who take inspiration from entirely different schools of thought, like Tom Regan's rights based approach, Francione's legal perspective, Gruen's feminist/care-based view, or something completely novel and different.

Most of the time, when animal rights activists don't like my answer to the burning building question, they simply disagree with my particular answer and reasoning, not the animal rights cause wholesale.

Burning building questions, for that matter, are hard. As are many other dilemmas, like whether to divert a train heading toward 5 people standing on a track into the path of one person instead, whether its advisable to use torture to locate a ticking time bomb, all the different variations of lifeboat ethics. Ask 10 different people any flavor of those questions, you'll get 11 different philosophical schools of thought, at least 3 people who say that an actual burning building is an emergency not an ethical dilemma, and at least another 5 people who say you're damned no matter what you do.

 

[BravesFan]

I would say the underlying core philosophy of the animal rights movement is "We are crazy cat ladies who have a delusional dogmatic viewpoint based on emotions related to the lack of love we have received from human beings, so eff them animals are better"

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well.

 

[bit_pattern]

I would say the underlying core philosophy of the animal rights movement is "We are crazy cat ladies who have a delusional dogmatic viewpoint based on emotions related to the lack of love we have received from human beings, so eff them animals are better"

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well.

I still put humans first, I think specism is a natural thing and most of my ethical choices are based on wanting humans to prosper and survive (i.e. the size of my carbon footprint) but when it comes to animals I take share dessie's view that there is nothing that separates us from other sentient animals so other sentient animals should be afforded the same fundamental rights as humans. There are simply more ethical ways of getting protein in your diet than eating the flesh of another person IMO.

 

[Dessi]

I would say the underlying core philosophy of the animal rights movement is "We are crazy cat ladies who have a delusional dogmatic viewpoint based on emotions related to the lack of love we have received from human beings, so eff them animals are better"

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well.

Dib: Okay, am I the only one here who sees the alien sitting in class?

The students look around for an alien.

Dib: There!

Dib points at Zim. The camera pans towards Zim but returns to Dib.

Dib: Right there!

The camera pans towards Zim again but this time stays on him. Zim sweats.

Dib: That is no kid! He's an alien! An alien! One of the monsters I've been talking about! He's here to conquer Earth! Don't let him trick you! I know what I'm talking about, and there it is... sitting right there!

Student1: Well, he does look... pretty weird.

(The word 'Weird' passes by Zim.)

Student2: Yeah, and he is sitting.

(The word "sitting" passes by Zim.)

Dib: Ya see? Actual proof that all the things I've been saying are actually right! Finally, a way to prove that I'm, that I'm...

Zim (imitating Dib): ...That I'm crazy!

Zita: Okay, now that makes sense!

Student: Man, we almost believed him!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Burning building questions, for that matter, are hard. As are many other dilemmas, like whether to divert a train heading toward 5 people standing on a track into the path of one person instead, whether its advisable to use torture to locate a ticking time bomb, all the different variations of lifeboat ethics. Ask 10 different people any flavor of those questions, you'll get 11 different philosophical schools of thought, at least 3 people who say that an actual burning building is an emergency not an ethical dilemma, and at least another 5 people who say you're damned no matter what you do.

Interesting. I have read through some of your posts and the moral framework you have worked out so carefully. This reads like an admission that it has no practical value.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting. I have read through some of your posts and the moral framework you have worked out so carefully. This reads like an admission that it has no practical value.

I don't see that. I see an admission that no moral system can solve all dilemma. IOW, if dilemma is all that is needed to render a moral philosophy unworkable then there are no workable philosophies that are internally consistent. There is a free Harvard Justice program that does an admirable job making the case. The professor, Michael Sandel argues that at best we can do is to prioritize goals and accept that sometimes there are no bright and shinny answers.

Watch the program. It's fascinating.

 

[SusanB-M1]

CitizenZen
thank you for responses. I'll come back to them later.

Tsukasa buddha
Very interesting collection of quotes! #956

Edited to add:
CitizenZen
thank you for the interesting info about haem and non-haem iron.
Anecdote: I sometimes wonder about whether to eat out and then I think, well, if I go into the butcher's, I can get a little piece of fillet for about £2.60, thin , flash=fry it and eat with salad and it will not only be much healthier, (no added salt, low fat, etc) but taste yummy and is quick to prepare.
Even though it appears that children can grow to be healthy adults with a vegan diet, I think it will remain a very minority trend.

And, with apologies for being flippant: If, by some improbable chance, it turns out that the doom-mongers are right and I find myself on 22 December this year amongst a small group of survivors of a world-ending event, I hope that this group includes someone who can catch and kill something edible, and build a fire!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't see that. I see an admission that no moral system can solve all dilemma. IOW, if dilemma is all that is needed to render a moral philosophy unworkable then there are no workable philosophies that are internally consistent. There is a free Harvard Justice program that does an admirable job making the case. The professor, Michael Sandel argues that at best we can do is to prioritize goals and accept that sometimes there are no bright and shinny answers.

Watch the program. It's fascinating.

Bah. I waded in here purely to squabble, and you're forcing me to think about what my point is, if I actually have one.

I suppose the problem I see is that Dessi is framing a pure abstraction - animals deserve the same moral consideration as people - rather than a moral value like compassion for the suffering of animals. From what I have seen over the decades, values can support useful activities in an imperfect world (e.g., the Humane Society), whereas pure abstractions lead to rigid thinking and ill will (e.g., PETA).

I'm watching the lectures... $100k to eat a worm??? I think I'd take that dare for about $50.

 

[Belz...]

Save a human infant or a dog? I would probably save the human infant.

Save a human infant or a cat? I would probably save the human infant, but this is a tougher decision.

Save a human adult or another animal? It really depends upon the human adult - there are a great many people I'd step over to save another animal.

That's sad to hear. I'd go for the human, every time.