idk why eating it makes it better, but it does, and most people would agree with that. Morality and feelings arent some kind of objective truth u can just find and explain in exact detail. Maybe pleasure derived from eating is more valid because deriving pleasure from just killing something makes it clear that u are crazy and a danger to society, maybe its not that eating it makes it better but that doing it for no reason makes it worse, after all people kill rats and other pests all the time without eating them for the pleasure of not having them around and no one seems to mind.
And u keep saying things like “slaughter of sentient life” (which is a funny way of saying farming but whatever) as if thats somehow wrong but u have never said why it would be wrong.
And there it is. “I don’t know why”, followed by an appeal to the majority (most people at one time believed slavery was ok, that doesn’t mean it was morally justified).
Your argument has come down to “I don’t know why, but it just is”.
I have said countless times why I believe eating animals is wrong. It is objectively wrong to cause something pain and death purely for taste pleasure.
If your argument has boiled down to “it is what it is”, then I suppose we can finish off this back and forth. It was a good chat, I enjoyed it! Thank you
I said i dont know but i did posit a likely possibility. Thats called “not being full of shit” when i dont know i say it, and no there wasnt a time when most people believe slavery was ok, there were times when it was more accepted and less but at every point in history there was a very large number of people who opposed specially slaves idk if it was always a majority but it almost certainly was. Even in the history of amerikkka famous for its love of slavery and genocide if u actually study the “democratic” decisions that allowed slavery to persist in most cases the margins were very narrow which means that when u add… the slaves to the question (+people who didn’t own land and women and many other groups who would be less slaver friendly) its clear that slavers weren’t a majority. Please stop trying to legitimize slavers.
People have been eating meat since before people were people u coming here and suddenly asking me to justify it is like asking me why i dont like getting rained on or why i like drinking cold water better.
There is nothing objective about ur assertion, why would it be and who decided that, why would it be wrong to cause something pain and kill it just to eat it thats just something u said and have never justified in any way
And besides as we have already established its not about pain and i doubt its about death either considering u are arguing for veganism not vegetarianism and even if u werent i doubt u would be ok with animals being sedated then having a body part that would regrow cut off and then eating that. So why do u keep coming back to pain and death, its catchy i guess?
Also no, my argument isnt it is what it is my argument is that u havent provided and argument against eating meat that u do infact refuse to provide one u just keep saying its wrong but never why, probably because u dont know because the reasons behind moral values are mostly unknowable which is why i also dont know but im not the one trying to impose my subjective morality on others am I?
And it has been fun tho obviously fruitless u were never going to change my mind and i wasnt even trying to change your, atleast not about eating meat, but i do hope u respect other peoples cultures, habits, and believes more.
Ah a few more classic meat eater points to rebut, I thought we had run out!
Your initial point is that “most people think eating meat is fine, so it’s fine”. I doubt that’s binding your morality, as if suddenly 50.1% of people were against eating meat, you wouldn’t then swap to veganism. You’re asserting that if the majority think something is morally permissible, then it should be. Which would make Hitler’s reign (who was very popular in Germany at the time) morally permissible. Also I’m not trying to legitimise slavers, and you know that, don’t strawman.
“People have been eating meat since before people were people”. That’s either an appeal to nature or an appeal to tradition. First, nature. Just because animals eat meat, doesn’t mean we should. Animals eat meat out of necessity, which makes it morally permissible. We do not need to do that. Furthermore, animals murder and rape, surely you don’t find this nature permissible?
As for appealing to tradition, that argument could be used to justify any number of problematic issues. “Gas companies have been polluting since time immemorial!” “Men have been marrying 13 year Olds since the 40s!”, it’s a broken argument without validity.
You keep saying that I haven’t justified the assertion that it is wrong to cause harm to sentient beings for pleasure. Rather, it is your responsibility to assert that the harm IS justified. YOU’RE the one causing harm, YOU’RE the one who needs to justify it. Currently your justifications include “because we just do”, “because we always have” and “because it’s not wrong”. Those are extremely poor reasons to harm others.
A valid argument to kill and eat another sentient being could be “because it’s necessary for me to live”. That would be valid. “Because you haven’t convinced me not to” is not. You wouldn’t accept that excuse from a murderer.
When did we establish that it’s not about pain? I don’t want to cause animals pain. Vegetarianism DOES include death. Male chicks can’t produce eggs, so are ground up in a machine shortly after hatching. Male cows do not produce dairy, and must be killed as soon as financially possible. I say pain and death, because that’s what meat eating causes? Sorry I didn’t understand your paragraph on this one.
As for “respecting other cultures”, you wouldn’t accept that as reasoning for me to kill and eat people would you? If a culture/people require the killing and eating of animals for their own survival, it is permissible. But as for western culutures, it is not necessary, and thus is only done for pleasure. Which is not a valid reason for killing something (as we agreed upon in the dog stomping example).
Like I’ve said here, I’d love to not be vegan. I loved eating meat, I grew up on a farm in rural New Zealand. If you can come up with a good reason to kill and eat animals, I’d LOVE to hear it. But if the argument “you haven’t convinced me not to” doesn’t justify the murder of humans, why would it justify killing animals, who also feel pain, sadness, grief and fear?
I don’t care if people disagree, that doesn’t make them right. The American, British and Australian dietician societies all agree that a vegan diet is healthy and sustainable for all stages of life. It would be foolish to disagree with probably the highest scientific communities regarding diet.
I don’t think that you’re right. The American society no longer holds that position and the Australian society only cites the American position which, again is no longer their position.
Is your moral framework so flimsy and easily swayable that you just blindly follow the majority? If the tides turned, and slavery became accepted by 50.1% of the population, you’d go “welp, most people are fine with it, guess I’ll get some slaves!”
This matters because as humans, we are empathetic to other’s existence. To not be is literally psychopathic. Most humans who watch a dog being decapitated feel bad, because they are empathetic to the animals suffering. The same is not true for a carrot being chopped, as we understand carrots do not experience the aforementioned emotions.
The emotions are critical to the argument. If animals didn’t feel said emotions, they would be no greater than plants, and it would be morally permissible to kill and eat them.
Okay, given all your arguments, I knew I was talking to someone who was being facetious and arguing in bad faith, but figured, I’ve got some free time, why not refute them.
Now I realise how much of a waste of time it was. You’re very clearly just folding your arms and going “nuh uh”. Because I know you aren’t bewilderingly simple minded. I know you aren’t catastrophically brain dead.
So the argument “well ACTUALLY, um, carrots despite having no brain, no central nervous system, no nociceptors, um, well I think they feel pain, ergo I’m going to kill animals”, is so stupidly impotent, that you must be taking the piss.
I’m going to block you now, so you don’t waste any of your OWN time curdling up some other trolling comments, but for your sake, the animals sake, and the planets sake, try a plant based meal every now and again!
What do you consider “harm”? If I killed you, have I “harmed” you? What a moronic assertion.
No to mention the catastrophic harm meat eating has on the environment, red meat being a 2A carcinogen, and numerous viruses borne from farming (ebola, COVID, mad cow disease, bird flu, swine flu), the creation of treatment resistant bacteria from overuse of antibiotics on animals etc etc.
Like, this might be then weakest argument I’ve ever, EVER heard someome use to defend meat eating. Good lord.
eating meat has no impact on the environment, it doesn’t create antibiotic resistant bacteria, and it doesn’t cause any harm. The modern production processes have led to some of those consequences. eating meat itself, though, does not.
idk why eating it makes it better, but it does, and most people would agree with that. Morality and feelings arent some kind of objective truth u can just find and explain in exact detail. Maybe pleasure derived from eating is more valid because deriving pleasure from just killing something makes it clear that u are crazy and a danger to society, maybe its not that eating it makes it better but that doing it for no reason makes it worse, after all people kill rats and other pests all the time without eating them for the pleasure of not having them around and no one seems to mind.
And u keep saying things like “slaughter of sentient life” (which is a funny way of saying farming but whatever) as if thats somehow wrong but u have never said why it would be wrong.
And there it is. “I don’t know why”, followed by an appeal to the majority (most people at one time believed slavery was ok, that doesn’t mean it was morally justified).
Your argument has come down to “I don’t know why, but it just is”.
I have said countless times why I believe eating animals is wrong. It is objectively wrong to cause something pain and death purely for taste pleasure.
If your argument has boiled down to “it is what it is”, then I suppose we can finish off this back and forth. It was a good chat, I enjoyed it! Thank you
I said i dont know but i did posit a likely possibility. Thats called “not being full of shit” when i dont know i say it, and no there wasnt a time when most people believe slavery was ok, there were times when it was more accepted and less but at every point in history there was a very large number of people who opposed specially slaves idk if it was always a majority but it almost certainly was. Even in the history of amerikkka famous for its love of slavery and genocide if u actually study the “democratic” decisions that allowed slavery to persist in most cases the margins were very narrow which means that when u add… the slaves to the question (+people who didn’t own land and women and many other groups who would be less slaver friendly) its clear that slavers weren’t a majority. Please stop trying to legitimize slavers.
People have been eating meat since before people were people u coming here and suddenly asking me to justify it is like asking me why i dont like getting rained on or why i like drinking cold water better.
There is nothing objective about ur assertion, why would it be and who decided that, why would it be wrong to cause something pain and kill it just to eat it thats just something u said and have never justified in any way And besides as we have already established its not about pain and i doubt its about death either considering u are arguing for veganism not vegetarianism and even if u werent i doubt u would be ok with animals being sedated then having a body part that would regrow cut off and then eating that. So why do u keep coming back to pain and death, its catchy i guess?
Also no, my argument isnt it is what it is my argument is that u havent provided and argument against eating meat that u do infact refuse to provide one u just keep saying its wrong but never why, probably because u dont know because the reasons behind moral values are mostly unknowable which is why i also dont know but im not the one trying to impose my subjective morality on others am I?
And it has been fun tho obviously fruitless u were never going to change my mind and i wasnt even trying to change your, atleast not about eating meat, but i do hope u respect other peoples cultures, habits, and believes more.
Ah a few more classic meat eater points to rebut, I thought we had run out!
Your initial point is that “most people think eating meat is fine, so it’s fine”. I doubt that’s binding your morality, as if suddenly 50.1% of people were against eating meat, you wouldn’t then swap to veganism. You’re asserting that if the majority think something is morally permissible, then it should be. Which would make Hitler’s reign (who was very popular in Germany at the time) morally permissible. Also I’m not trying to legitimise slavers, and you know that, don’t strawman.
“People have been eating meat since before people were people”. That’s either an appeal to nature or an appeal to tradition. First, nature. Just because animals eat meat, doesn’t mean we should. Animals eat meat out of necessity, which makes it morally permissible. We do not need to do that. Furthermore, animals murder and rape, surely you don’t find this nature permissible? As for appealing to tradition, that argument could be used to justify any number of problematic issues. “Gas companies have been polluting since time immemorial!” “Men have been marrying 13 year Olds since the 40s!”, it’s a broken argument without validity.
You keep saying that I haven’t justified the assertion that it is wrong to cause harm to sentient beings for pleasure. Rather, it is your responsibility to assert that the harm IS justified. YOU’RE the one causing harm, YOU’RE the one who needs to justify it. Currently your justifications include “because we just do”, “because we always have” and “because it’s not wrong”. Those are extremely poor reasons to harm others.
A valid argument to kill and eat another sentient being could be “because it’s necessary for me to live”. That would be valid. “Because you haven’t convinced me not to” is not. You wouldn’t accept that excuse from a murderer.
When did we establish that it’s not about pain? I don’t want to cause animals pain. Vegetarianism DOES include death. Male chicks can’t produce eggs, so are ground up in a machine shortly after hatching. Male cows do not produce dairy, and must be killed as soon as financially possible. I say pain and death, because that’s what meat eating causes? Sorry I didn’t understand your paragraph on this one.
As for “respecting other cultures”, you wouldn’t accept that as reasoning for me to kill and eat people would you? If a culture/people require the killing and eating of animals for their own survival, it is permissible. But as for western culutures, it is not necessary, and thus is only done for pleasure. Which is not a valid reason for killing something (as we agreed upon in the dog stomping example).
Like I’ve said here, I’d love to not be vegan. I loved eating meat, I grew up on a farm in rural New Zealand. If you can come up with a good reason to kill and eat animals, I’d LOVE to hear it. But if the argument “you haven’t convinced me not to” doesn’t justify the murder of humans, why would it justify killing animals, who also feel pain, sadness, grief and fear?
I think most people would disagree with you about necessity
I don’t care if people disagree, that doesn’t make them right. The American, British and Australian dietician societies all agree that a vegan diet is healthy and sustainable for all stages of life. It would be foolish to disagree with probably the highest scientific communities regarding diet.
I don’t think that you’re right. The American society no longer holds that position and the Australian society only cites the American position which, again is no longer their position.
deleted by creator
if most people are fine with something, that is good reason to think it is fine.
Did you… Read any of what I wrote?
Is your moral framework so flimsy and easily swayable that you just blindly follow the majority? If the tides turned, and slavery became accepted by 50.1% of the population, you’d go “welp, most people are fine with it, guess I’ll get some slaves!”
And you think MY morals are weird. My word.
I read what you said and you don’t seem to understand but nobody’s talking about a 50.1% issue here.
they aren’t fallaciously appealing to nature: theyre doing so in a reasonable way.
Damn I just got a bunch of replies from you, each single sentences, and each roughly boiling down to “no actually”.
The Appeal to Nature is a literal fallacy. Next!
people fall for fallacious reasoning because it mimics good reasoning. they were using good reasoning, not making a fallacy.
why does this matter? it reads like an appeal to emotion.
This matters because as humans, we are empathetic to other’s existence. To not be is literally psychopathic. Most humans who watch a dog being decapitated feel bad, because they are empathetic to the animals suffering. The same is not true for a carrot being chopped, as we understand carrots do not experience the aforementioned emotions.
The emotions are critical to the argument. If animals didn’t feel said emotions, they would be no greater than plants, and it would be morally permissible to kill and eat them.
you don’t know the carrots do not experience those emotions.
Okay, given all your arguments, I knew I was talking to someone who was being facetious and arguing in bad faith, but figured, I’ve got some free time, why not refute them.
Now I realise how much of a waste of time it was. You’re very clearly just folding your arms and going “nuh uh”. Because I know you aren’t bewilderingly simple minded. I know you aren’t catastrophically brain dead.
So the argument “well ACTUALLY, um, carrots despite having no brain, no central nervous system, no nociceptors, um, well I think they feel pain, ergo I’m going to kill animals”, is so stupidly impotent, that you must be taking the piss.
I’m going to block you now, so you don’t waste any of your OWN time curdling up some other trolling comments, but for your sake, the animals sake, and the planets sake, try a plant based meal every now and again!
eating a plant based meal won’t do help animals or the planet
this never happened.
oh thank god
this is a strawman.
i haven’t presented any arguments. i’ve only been rebutting yours.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
we can be empathetic and still not believe it’s morally wrong to eat meat.
no, it is your responsibility to explain the moral framework you want someone to adopt.
I’ve explained my moral framework. Please read what I’ve written. I’ll explain it here again.
“Causing harm to sentient life for pleasure is immoral.”
Consider my responsibility fulfilled, thank you for playing.
Now YOU justify why it’s okay to cause suffering for your own pleasure.
you need to define basically every word in this sentence in order for me to even understand what you mean by it.
eating meat doesn’t cause harm
“no u”.
What do you consider “harm”? If I killed you, have I “harmed” you? What a moronic assertion.
No to mention the catastrophic harm meat eating has on the environment, red meat being a 2A carcinogen, and numerous viruses borne from farming (ebola, COVID, mad cow disease, bird flu, swine flu), the creation of treatment resistant bacteria from overuse of antibiotics on animals etc etc.
Like, this might be then weakest argument I’ve ever, EVER heard someome use to defend meat eating. Good lord.
eating meat has no impact on the environment, it doesn’t create antibiotic resistant bacteria, and it doesn’t cause any harm. The modern production processes have led to some of those consequences. eating meat itself, though, does not.