First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan.
that's like the rapist who responds to the judge: "No one is attempting to push you to rape someone"
What in the hell are you on about? More rape ffs
of course, but you understand the analogy, I hope...
I agree, rape and slavery are bad. I do not agree that animals and humans are equivalent, and this type of logic, BY DEFAULT is antihuman, because it automatically lowers all human beings to the status of barn animals under this dialectic.
why do you assume it lowers the position of humans instead of increasing the position of animals? You seem to have a moral gravity bias
https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/the-moral-gravity-bias/Humans and animals are equivalent as long as we can't find a morally relevant difference.
That is a good way to justify the subservience, neglect, and slaughter of humans while you cry about the rights of cows and chickens.
being against the slaughet of cow but tolerant toward the slaughter of humans? That would still be arbitrary discrimination, a kind of speciesism, against the claim that humans and animals are morally equivalent.
Again with the rape! You really don't believe this is obsessive behavior bringing rape into a discussion about veganism so many times?
no, as long as the analogy makes sense, we are allowed to make that analogy. It has nothing to do with obsessive behavior, it has to do with moral consistency and analogical reasoning. That is very important in ethics.
This is what I mean by antihuman. By making all animals equivalent with humans, suddenly all humans also become equivalent with animals, and it becomes a MUCH simpler task to justify bringing humanity to slaughter or other forms of maltreatment.
but you should not lower the moral status of humans, that would be immoral. You know that I want to uplift the moral status of non-human animals and that I am against lowering the position of humans, so you don't have to make such straw man fallacies.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are often known to be animal lovers too,
no thet are not. In fact, one of the early warning signs of being a psychopath is animal abuse as a child.
By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?
yes
I don't think the majority of humans on Earth would find this an arbitrary distinction.
because the majority suffers from a moral illusion called speciesism. There was a time when the majority of whites suffered from a similar kind of moral illusion called racism. Those racists believed that the black-white distinction was not arbitrary.
If animals were equivalent to humans they would be joining in this discussion here with us. So far I haven't heard from any pigs or cattle.
no, you know that is not true. You know that mentally disabled humans are humans, right? And some of those humans are not able to join this discussion, right? So far you haven't heard from those humans. But they still have basic rights such as the right not to be used as merely a means, right?
Again your premise that meat based diets harms "others" is based on the premise that animals are equivalent to humans.
it is rather based on the premisse that we should not arbitrarily harm someone.
Plants are a life form too. Why are not plants included in your generalization of "others"? Are plants not harmed when you consume them as well? Is that not also destroying life to provide yourself nutrition?
I respect the basic right of plants not to be used against their will as a means to my ends. I respect their basic right not to be killed against their will. That is because plants do not have a will. No matter what I do, I respect their rights because those rights are trivial for plants. So, the basic right not to be used against your will as merely a means should be given to everyone and everything in the universe, including elektrons, planets, cars, laptops, trees, pigs,... without any arbitrary exceptions. You cannot accuse me of making arbitrary exceptions.
but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.
No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.
vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate for all humans:
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357The key words you used are "can be", as in if you scoured the globe for the finest plants and cultivated your own food painstakingly, as well as eat plant matter nearly all day long, and spend the rest of your time crapping, then yes, veganism "can be" nutritionally adequate.
that is clearly not what the nutritional scientists meant with "can be". You don't have to scoure the globe etc. Eating vegan is perfectly feasible.
That doesn't make it realistic for the majority of humans just because it is possible.
I don't know where you live, but I bet for you it is as realistic as it is for me. So let's consider our duties, without hiding ourselves behind "the majority of humans".
So you are using the glass half full argument for Hitler? Yeah your right, he may have committed genocide against millions of people, but at least he treated goats with respect. Again your argument against my use of the word antihuman depends completely upon the premise that humans are equal to animals.
yes, Hitler was antihuman, because he placed some humans (jews) lower than some animals. So let us suppose that Hitler was like me a real animal rights activist, against all kinds of violence towards animals, against killing them, against vivisection, etc... Let us, for the sake of the argument, suppose this is true. Then, what would happen if Hilter believed that humans are equal to animals? Use your logical reasoning skills. Yes, there would be no holocaust, no war, no racism, no cruel experiments on humans. So that would be good. The problem with Hilter would than be that he did not believe that humans are equal to animals. If only he believed that...
So Hitler was clearly inconsistent: he was against vivisection of animals but pro using some humans (disabled, jews,...) against their will in cruel experiments.
Additionally your attempt to muddy the discussion with neo-feminist and racial talking points is a quite disingenuous attempt to attach moral authority to your argument, as if anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, or even worse a slave owning rapist.
anyone who disagrees is a speciesist. And yes, that is "as if" s/he is racist or sexist. Because both speciesism and racism and sexism are kinds of immoral, arbitrary discriminations that cause harm.
As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.
what do you mean with that? My fascination with rape? Gynocentric brainwashing?
I mean that you packed so many talking points used by politically motivated neo-feminist groups that it is completely transparent to me that you must spend a lot of time around these types of people being continually indoctrinated to the point where you can't help but have those ideas that were driven into your head via repetitive conditioning leak out during an unrelated discussion about your dietary choices.
uhm... are you suggesting that my attitute against rape is the result of indoctrination by neo-feminists? But you are also strongly against rape, aren't you?
Even if I am wrong about this and you are in fact a female, I still feel bad for you, because you have no idea how much harm you are bringing down upon all females (and males for that matter) by repeating such divisive politically motivated ignorance.
I am male.
And I don't see the harm I bring down upon females when I communicate my anti-rape attitude
If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented
Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok.
then how did you use the word antihuman?
Of course the rapist would not argue against a male centric viewpoint. I was comparing it with your claim. A meat eater says that anti meat talk is anti human. Well, than a rapist says that anti rape talk is anti male. You see the analogy? It is an analogy between two fallacious argumants.
human = homo sapiens
anti = in opposition to
antihuman = against homo sapiens
that is similar to what I meant with anti androcentrism: against men.
So now you are comparing me with a rapist, but me calling you malnourished is a personal attack?
you do not ahve evidence that I am malnourished, but I do have evidence that you violate someone's basic right by using someone's body against his/her will (by eating his/her muscle tissue). And that is comparable to what a rapist does: using someone's body (vagina) against her will.
Your analogy ONCE AGAIN relies COMPLETELY on the premise that animals are equal to humans. I understand what you are trying to communicate with me but your premise is fallacy therefore all analogies based on it are false.
As long as you can't give a morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans, we cannot arbitrarily exclude nonhumans from the moral community. The starting assumption is that everyone and everything is morally equal, until there is evidence of moral inequality, i.e. until there is evidence of a morally relevent difference. So please tell me what that difference is.
Your willful ignorance of the arguments of others counter to your world view is not evidence of lack of arguments against it. I have one simple proof. There are no non homo sapiens animals engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefor animals can not be equivalent to humans.
well, there are no mentally disabled humans engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefore mentally disabled humans cannot be equivalent to mentally abled humans? Therefore we can use their bodies against their will as means to our ends, for experiments or meat? Do you give basic rights to mentally disabled humans? I hope you do. But then, what is the difference with non-human animals?
Who is eating disabled people?
no-one, because that is immoral.
Well that is good to know. I still wonder why you brought it up then if it is a nonexistent problem.
necause if you believe eating those humans is immoral whereas eating non-human animals is permissible, and if you are not able to point at a morally relevant difference, then you are guilty of discrimination. And if you are allowed to choose your victims arbitrarily, then so am I and so is everyone. And you cannot want that. If you are allowed to be speciesist, then a rapist is allowed to be sexist.
Again, eating a hamburger is not equivalent to rape regardless of however you justify it in your twisted and abused mind. Once again your analogy rests upon the fallacious premise that animals are equivalent to humans.
again, if you don't believe they are equivalent, you have to give a reason, a criterion, a morally relevant difference. Merely making a claim is not sufficient.
I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.
conformity bias does not mean there is an intentional, conscious or overt pressure from the group. Cfr the experiment of Asch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments The group members did not overtly or consciously pressure the subject to give the wrong answer.
I am not even going to attempt to address this pathetic appeal to authority fallacy.
authority fallacy?
I don't know you personally no. I have however known several people who talk just like you and preach veganism as if it was a lost book of the bible, and none of them ever looked very healthy to me.
perhaps this will convince you
https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/the-health-benefits-of-vegan-diets/http://www.greatveganathletes.com/By brainwashing I mean you have been conditioned mentally to have beliefs counter to facts, reality, and probably some times even your own once organically held beliefs.
well at least veganism is not counter to facts, reality and our originally held strongest moral beliefs.
You have become a vessel for others to use to spread their political ideology, and chances are you have no awareness of this. In your mind you are just saying what you think is the truth, but unfortunately the people who told you this is the truth are liars. My evidence is that you used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism.
but no-one told me to use the rape analogy. I used it because it is a valid analogy. Rape is bad because of X (this is a moral judgment you already agree with), eating meat also satisfies X (this is a true fact, whether or not you believe it) and there eating meat is bad. That is a matter of consistency
(X= harm, rights violations, use of body against the will,...)
The gynocentric neo-feminist movement is completely obsessed with using rape as a tool of shaming against all men, rapist or not as a form of trauma based control, shaming you via negative operant conditioning to speak as if all males are potential rapists.
shaming against all men? As if all males are potential rapists? Trauma based control? What are you talking about? It seems you're making things up. Yo do know that I don't believe that all males are potential rapists.
And almost all feminists are not gynocentric, they don't believe women are more important than men.
If anyone denies this position, they are automatically defending rape. It is much like asking some one the question "So when did you stop beating your wife?". The question involves the assumed premise that the person being asked beats their wife, and if it were to be replied to directly would either appear as if he still continues to beat his wife, or that he used to beat his wife but has now stopped.
or like asking the question "what is your obsession with rape?" The assumed premisse is that the person being asked is obsessed with rape.
In short you are placing everything under the context of rape in order to try to make any argument against your points indefensible without appearing to be defending rape. It is very disingenuous and dishonest.
it is rather a matter of consistency.
