Don't forget where we came from and what shaped us as a species. The Jungle.
Don't forget where we came from and what shaped us as a species. The Jungle.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Okay. You’re entitled to that take, and I’m simply just stating mine.
And that is- The reason for either side’s justification is irrelevant. Just leave people alone to do their own thing. If they want to know about the other side’s cause, they’ll look into it themselves. It’s 2025. The info is out there in spades.
So, maybe… let’s care less about what others eat, as it’s not our business unless asked, and care more about what we ourselves can do to make things better.
Just a suggestion.
Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?
"Just leave people alone to do their thing." "Let's care less about what others eat."
Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?
Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?
No, I would not. Why? Because we’re not talking about human children.
Now. Im done discussing this with you. Enduring two back-to-back attempts to argue in bad faith using false equivalencies is my limit.
I simply wanted to state my point that people should be free to make their own decisions on what they want to eat without being harassed, and you came in to be the perfect shining example of my point.
I see no other purpose in continuing this, ending it here.
I'm a different person, that was my first comment here.
The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.
In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it's wrong? If yes, why shouldn't the vegan do the same?
I will say that I can't claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.
If one considers the act immoral, yet said act is legal- then one has no business telling the person that they shouldn’t do said act. It’s not their business regardless of what it is.
Child abuse doesn’t apply here.
Rape doesn’t apply here.
Apples don’t apply here.
Oranges don’t apply here.It’s about food. And it’s only considered immoral by those that believe that it is. And that belief is not an obligation to anyone.
And if I need any further proof to my point, look no further than the responses to my original comment. I’m getting hammered by people telling me I’m wrong and comparing the eating of meat to rape.
This was the exact point I made in my original comment. People need to stay out of the decisions of others. It’s not their business.
I’m done with this discussion now.
Your take, broken down into its elements goes as follows:
Premises: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong.
Reasoning: People should be allowed to do what is legal without moral objections from others.
Conclusion: Because X is legal, Y shouldn't object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it's wrong.
Why shouldn't child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted for the variables. If you think the logic in the statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:
Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn't object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it's wrong.
Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn't object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it's wrong.
The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn't object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it's wrong.
These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.
Doing X is legal.
Person Y has no place telling someone they shouldn’t do X.
Person Y is more then welcome to make the information publicly known and available to anyone that partakes in doing X
Person X is under no obligation to look at said information if they don’t wish to.
Person Y should leave person X alone to live their life without constant harassment from person Y.
Person Y probably doesn’t like others telling them how to live their lives, what they should put in their bodies, who they should marry, love, or live with.
Person Y should note the irony in this.
Person Y should spend their time in support of others that share the same belief than antagonizing those that don’t.I didn’t read the rest of your wall of text as I have said time and again here that I refuse to argue about it. You all have zero respect for others wishes- I no longer have any for yours. I’ve tagged you as “vegan blowhard” so I’ll now know not to engage with you in the future.
Oh, and congrats! You pushed someone further away from your cause.
Doing the holocaust was legal.
Angela has no right to tell someone they shouldn't do the holocaust.
Angela is more than welcome to make the information publicly available to anyone partaking in doing the holocaust.
The nazi is under no obligation to look at said information if they don't wish to.
Angela should leave the nazi alone to live their life without constant harassment from Angela.
Angela probably doesn't like others telling her how to live her life, what she should put in her body, who she should marry, love or live with.
Angela should note the irony in this.
Angela should spend her time in support of others that share the same belief, rather than antagonising those who don't.You presented one premise, skipped any attempt at reasoning and all the rest are conclusions based on nothing tangible.
Calling me a vegan blowhard is interesting considering that I already said that I'm not a vegan. I have made no claims on the subject here. I just find logical jousting enjoyable. The fact that you're quite bad at this makes it even more fun.
Who’s Angela? And why is this now suddenly about the holocaust?
Seriously… take away your false equations and you really have nothing. You probably need to learn how to argue a point if you’re going to barge into discussions in defense of things you seem to have no defense for, or wasn’t even asked for to begin with.
And since you are here for no other reason than to argue- that means you have no dog in this race, and therefore- I’m disqualifying you from it.
And thanks for correcting me on the tag. I’ve updated it to just: “Blowhard.”
Now. I’ll unblock you when I feel you’ve had enough time to understand the original point I was making, and how you’ve done nothing but prove it this entire time.
This isn't about the holocaust. It's about your faulty reasoning. I'm just using the holocaust as an easy example of something that is widely considered objectionable in order to demonstrate just how flawed your reasoning is. Angela is just a random value in place of the variable "person Y".
I have made absolutely no changes to the reasoning within the statements. It's all just the same flawed reasoning of yours. If the reasoning were valid, then true premises would always result in true conclusions. This clearly didn't happen, despite the fact that my alternate premises (nazis legalised holocaust) were true. This is deductive argumentation 101.
I do have a dog in the race. I care about the subject. I just haven't talked about it because you're too much fun. The meat industry is a significant contributor to the climate and eco crisis. As a person living on the same planet and reliant on the stability of the same atmospheric and ecological systems, it is a concern of mine that people eat meat and other animal products so much. I've managed to eliminate most animal products from my diet, but not all of them. But regardless of all that, why shouldn't I be allowed to criticise someone for not being logical?
Sure, block me if you want, but I still have a feeling that you'll come to read this, just as you continued the discussion after three times claiming to end it, perhaps hoping that I had slipped up in my response. Who knows, maybe this time you get lucky?
If one considers the act immoral, yet said act is legal- then one has no business telling the person that they shouldn’t do said act. It’s not their business regardless of what it is.
Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn't okay to tell people that what they're doing is wrong.
This is a literal defense of slavery. I'm not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn't own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.
Edit: y'all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn't hurt him.
Yeah… you’re definitely misinterpreting it. And again, like everyone’s else- arguing false equivalency.
This is not at all like defending slavery. This is telling people to butt-out of the dietary decisions that have nothing to do with you.
If you want an argument that IS similar…
What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.
Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.
If you don’t like someone’s diet, that’s a YOU problem. And this goes for both sides of the argument. Though I don’t see any meat-eaters whining about this.
Imagine that.
Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.
You have to understand that the logic you are using here can be used to justify a bunch of awful things. The government banning gay marriage also has absolutely no impact on my life and doesn't hurt me the least bit, but I can still argue for the rights and wellbeing of people and animals who aren't like me.
What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.
This is word salad, but I think what you're getting at is that telling other people what they should and shouldn't eat is like telling gay people that they shouldn't be gay. That's not a similar argument, because being gay doesn't hurt anything and eating meat does.
Okay, then the logic you’re used here can be used to justify anti-LGBTQ bigotry. Because you are claiming that because of YOUR belief, others who don’t share it, have to change their behavior or they’re morally wrong.
Good job.
Nope. I'm against meat production because it harms things and we don't need to do it. Being gay doesn't harm anything. My underlying logic does not support bigotry. My underlying logic does support things like fighting for LGBT rights and abolitionism.
You need to try harder.
Someone else eating meat harms you just as much as some else being gay harms fundamentalist Christians- which is, or should be zero.
There is no harm to you if I eat a steak. None.
And like my comparison, it’s just as much your business if someone eats a steak as it would be a fundamentalist Christian’s business who other people love.
There is no reason you have to tell others how they should live their lives if they don’t ask you for your opinion.
Lastly, I didn’t say eating animals is similar to bigotry. That would be an easily extinguished straw man. It’s not the purpose, it’s the justification of telling others what to do based on YOUR belief.
So no… Your logic doesn’t support bigotry. But it does support oppression. And righteous oppression is your commonality with bigots.
Everything was legal before people decided certain things shouldnt. You think that happened overnight? No, people started complaining because they had moral values.
What if I like eating human meat?
Youre entitled to your opinion, but the argument in itself is not a valid one. Not caring about what other people do has is called anarchy. How would you rate the same argument with other context?
"Lets care less about who others kill?" (that ones actually pretty similar now that im writing it^^)
"Lets care less about who others spit on?"
"Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB"Imagine those in a context where there were no laws regulating those actions yet. Someone had to step up and start demanding we regulate behavior and establish rules for generally accepted behavior. Those rules are constantly changing and they should. We need to adjust to new information as we go on. Making animals suffer for our convenience is something many people consider immoral and sometimes people point out when other do immoral things.
Are you people capable of arguing without using false equivalencies?
I made my point that people shouldn’t tell others what to do with their diets, and you’re here to be a perfect example of my point.
Thanks?
But like I told the other person doing the same thing, I don’t argue with people who bring false equivalence to a conversation to derail the meaning of my own point.
Enjoy your evening.
Where is the false equivalency? I dont think you know what that term means.
"Lets care less about who others kill?"
What, not who. And someone choosing to eat meat has nothing to do with whether or not you care. It’s about whether or not you have the right to tell them they shouldn’t when they DIDN’T ASK YOU.
This is a false equivalence because you’re equating something that is not equal to the argument presented.
"Lets care less about who others spit on?"
No one is talking about spitting on anyone, or being spit on by anyone.
This is a false equivalence because in this discussion, animals aren’t spit, nor are they being spit on, nor are they spitting on anyone. In addition to it being false equivalence- it’s downright nonsense.
"Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB"
No one is talking about music. Animals aren’t music. Animals aren’t playing music. No one is playing music. My neighbors have nothing to do with this.
This is a false equivalence because you’re equating something that is not equal to the argument presented.
And if none of these are false equivalencies. Then I’m the very least- they’re ALL straw men. And that’s by definition- arguing in bad faith. Which is apparently, the only way you can discuss the topic.
Blocking you now as I have wasted enough of my time, but trust me when I say this- I am now no longer neutral on the topic. I will no longer waste my time defending veganism in any conversation that illustrates them in a negative light as you all have proven you don’t deserve the time wasted in doing so.
See, I told you you dont know what the term means...