I have no intent to deceive. There’s a moral inconsistency amongst meat eaters. Pigs are okay, dogs are not. Why?
“Oh, because we like dogs”
Does that mean I can eat any sentient thing I dislike?
“Well, no, dogs are intelligent!”
Pigs are smarter than most breeds of dog, and have equal capabilities for emotion.
There is no logical argument against veganism in western society. Literally none. Meat eaters collectively breed and kill literally billions of animals per year, destroying the planet, because it’s yummy. Meat eaters have essentially caused swine flu, bird flu, ebola, corona virus, just for the taste of meat. Meat eaters are causing treatment resistant bacteria by abusing antibiotics on high intensity farming, all for meat. That’s crazy.
No it’s not. It being a “gotcha” does not mean it’s wrong. In fact, it is still right, you’re just wrong and think the person you reply to is wrong because they disagree with you.
Hahaha just answer the question. You’re like that meme that goes “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, STRAWMAN FALLACY” in the middle of a normal conversation. Likr, if you’re in a debate and someone pushes your argument into a corner, you can’t go “no, judged the opposing team is using gotcha arguments that make mine look foolish, I object”.
Hey it’s only a trap if your argument falls for it. When have I lied? Stop arguing weird imagined semantics and actually reply like a human. Why do you think it’s okay to kill and consume sentient life?
The question “would you eat dog meat?” and your outrage at the question, while a gotcha, is a very solid way to point out your inconsistency. It’s by no means dishonest because it outlines your inconsistency without false pretense. You’re being asked a direct question, and you got got.
You don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card because you don’t like how this rhetorical device proved your position weak.
sophistry is shitty. they had no interest in a genuine discussion or learning anything: they’re just trying to show how right they are, regardless of the facts
The facts are there: the consumption of animal products the way it is done across the vast majority of the planet is not something you can rationalize: it’s bad for the consumers, bad for the environnement and, most of all, bad for the animals that are being slaughtered on a massive scale.
Don’t fool yourself: I’m not talking about the act of ingesting the flesh of dead animals, which could theoretically be done in a way that doesn’t have such a strong negative impact on everyone involved. I’m talking about what’s happening in the real world, which is very far from idealized “what if” theories that are pretty unattainable, and an artificial debate construction carnivores use in debates with vegans.
You and I consume animal products. The difference between the two of us is I find the moral objections to the consumption of dog meat to be rationally indefensible, and pretty ridiculous.
Do consume animal products if you like. I’m not a vegan, and I would be hypocritical to judge you based on that. Whatever you do though, just don’t make the mistake of assuming your moral system is universal because it’s pretty illogical.
There’s a lot of awful things in culture. It was culturally acceptable to slap a women on the bottom for a good job.
Your argument is “ah well”.
That’s not a reasonable defense for your objectively immoral actions. You are causing the suffering of sentient life for taste, that makes you immoral. Not to mention the horrible effect your diet has on the planet.
Okay, I believe it is morally reprehensible to kill a sentient being - one that feels fear and does not want to die, solely for pleasure. Eating meat is immoral and in a just world, would be punishable.
Sentience means “the capacity to have feelings”, and it is widely understood by the scientific community that the vast majority of the animal kingdom has sentience.
Do you believe cows can experience pain? Because we’re right up close against rejecting scientific consensus just to justify immoral actions. And that typically is frowned upon historically.
Subjecting something that feels pain to experience pain for your pleasure is immoral.
I have no intent to deceive. There’s a moral inconsistency amongst meat eaters. Pigs are okay, dogs are not. Why? “Oh, because we like dogs” Does that mean I can eat any sentient thing I dislike? “Well, no, dogs are intelligent!” Pigs are smarter than most breeds of dog, and have equal capabilities for emotion.
There is no logical argument against veganism in western society. Literally none. Meat eaters collectively breed and kill literally billions of animals per year, destroying the planet, because it’s yummy. Meat eaters have essentially caused swine flu, bird flu, ebola, corona virus, just for the taste of meat. Meat eaters are causing treatment resistant bacteria by abusing antibiotics on high intensity farming, all for meat. That’s crazy.
it’s clearly a gotcha. that’s bad faith.
No it’s not. It being a “gotcha” does not mean it’s wrong. In fact, it is still right, you’re just wrong and think the person you reply to is wrong because they disagree with you.
and now you admit it’s a gotcha. you are engaging in bad faith
Removed by mod
i mean gotchas are bad faith. they are loaded questions.
Hahaha just answer the question. You’re like that meme that goes “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, STRAWMAN FALLACY” in the middle of a normal conversation. Likr, if you’re in a debate and someone pushes your argument into a corner, you can’t go “no, judged the opposing team is using gotcha arguments that make mine look foolish, I object”.
Gotcha!
I’m just trying to keep the conversation honest and point out rhetorical traps laid by dishonest interlocutors
Hey it’s only a trap if your argument falls for it. When have I lied? Stop arguing weird imagined semantics and actually reply like a human. Why do you think it’s okay to kill and consume sentient life?
The question “would you eat dog meat?” and your outrage at the question, while a gotcha, is a very solid way to point out your inconsistency. It’s by no means dishonest because it outlines your inconsistency without false pretense. You’re being asked a direct question, and you got got.
You don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card because you don’t like how this rhetorical device proved your position weak.
sophistry is shitty. they had no interest in a genuine discussion or learning anything: they’re just trying to show how right they are, regardless of the facts
The facts are there: the consumption of animal products the way it is done across the vast majority of the planet is not something you can rationalize: it’s bad for the consumers, bad for the environnement and, most of all, bad for the animals that are being slaughtered on a massive scale.
Don’t fool yourself: I’m not talking about the act of ingesting the flesh of dead animals, which could theoretically be done in a way that doesn’t have such a strong negative impact on everyone involved. I’m talking about what’s happening in the real world, which is very far from idealized “what if” theories that are pretty unattainable, and an artificial debate construction carnivores use in debates with vegans.
You and I consume animal products. The difference between the two of us is I find the moral objections to the consumption of dog meat to be rationally indefensible, and pretty ridiculous.
Do consume animal products if you like. I’m not a vegan, and I would be hypocritical to judge you based on that. Whatever you do though, just don’t make the mistake of assuming your moral system is universal because it’s pretty illogical.
In short, get off that high horse.
there is no logical argument for a lot of things, its just culture. and it is tasty and thats all that need be said.
There’s a lot of awful things in culture. It was culturally acceptable to slap a women on the bottom for a good job.
Your argument is “ah well”.
That’s not a reasonable defense for your objectively immoral actions. You are causing the suffering of sentient life for taste, that makes you immoral. Not to mention the horrible effect your diet has on the planet.
yeah there are, luckly this isnt one of them eating meat is perfectly fine.
Go on, give me a valid defense for western populations killing animals for taste alone.
give me a valid offense against it there is nothing to defend because there is nothing wrong with it.
Okay, I believe it is morally reprehensible to kill a sentient being - one that feels fear and does not want to die, solely for pleasure. Eating meat is immoral and in a just world, would be punishable.
well we arent killing anything sentient so i dont see ur problem
Sentience means “the capacity to have feelings”, and it is widely understood by the scientific community that the vast majority of the animal kingdom has sentience.
Do you believe cows can experience pain? Because we’re right up close against rejecting scientific consensus just to justify immoral actions. And that typically is frowned upon historically.
Subjecting something that feels pain to experience pain for your pleasure is immoral.