Comment

Rambling article that fails to prove its central point

Glad you concede.

This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process

Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.

It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly

Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.

Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off

You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot”, or you are trying to change a topic you know you cannot win, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.

Now you’re belittling me, ironically

Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.

Thanks for the discussion. Don’t reply.

source

Sort:hotnew top

dx1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
This is just obnoxious.

source
- federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith
  
  jesus christ. there is no self awareness here at all.
  
  source
- abraxas@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
  
  What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
  
  Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
  
  “Nulla poena sine lege”… “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. A legal (and ethical) maxim. Lacking compelling reason to accept vegan reasoning, it is ethical to eat meat.
  
  Every ethical system has at least one argument that supports meat-eating. Joined with bullet point 1, there is no foundation worthy of continuing the discussion. A strong argument for veganism alongside a strong argument against veganism boils down to “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, so long as one pro-meat argument remains. Pick any ethical system if you want to dig in deeper, but I tend towards Utilitarianism.
  
  Similar to the above, life is suffering. The animals I eat live better lives than most humans, and would live WORSE lives or NO lives if they were not being eaten. (See Sir Karl Popper below)
  
  There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
  
  Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
  
  source
  - dx1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Mmn, so negative utilitarianism, the stance that people should minimize suffering. And for some reason this does not apply to animals?
    
    source
    abraxas@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Check out Karl Popper’s argument.
    
    For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
    
    First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy.
    
    Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
    
    Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years.
    
    So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments