Vegan Sellout List

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

bUU: For the sake of organization, I'm going to try to consolidate some of what you said.

That's always a bad idea. Generally, it is best to respond to what people actually write instead of that for which you have a ready response for. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even if things aren't nails.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

One of your points is that illegal things are always immoral things due to the fact that they are illegal.

But do you remember why? Did you read my explanation why? How can you hope to post a response without actually acknowledging and responding to my reasoning? Most of the words from my comment which you skipped over hold the answers to the challenges you raise. How about going back and reading what I already wrote rather than me copying and pasting my earlier reply?

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

There are two possible claims here, and I think I know which one you are stating

If you actually read what I wrote, and restrict your comments to that, you wouldn't have to guess. You would know what I stated, and then you'd be able to post a reply that is relevant to the comments you're replying to. Let's try it that way.

Incidentally, once you read what I wrote, you'll find that there is a third "possible claim" here - the one I actually made.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I agree that a DUI is immoral regardless of whether you actually injure someone, but I believe you are using the word "victim" too narrowly here.

A comment that would contradict most of the rationalizations you posted earlier. Yes, we can view society as a "victim" and recognize that going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone harms that victim since it violates the rules you agreed to abide by set forth by the victim, but if I wrote that then you'd probably have responded with the exact opposite of what you posted here, complaining about how I used the word "victim" too broadly. That's why, as I said earlier, let's try having you respond to what I actually wrote rather than something you find easier to argue with.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

You cannot possibly believe it is immoral -- to any extent -- to stop a person from waterboarding children for no good reason.

A comment that indicates that you're still blinded by black-and-white thinking and have not read or understood the comments you're replying to.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

What is the contradiction?

Until you actually internalize what I wrote, I couldn't begin to help you understand the contradiction you posted.

[SoulJourn]

Originally Posted by Gerania

Was it? The History of All-Meat Diets - Diagnosisiet

How would you expect truth from a site that promotes an "all meat diet"?

[Gerania]

Originally Posted by SoulJourn

How would you expect truth from a site that promotes an "all meat diet"?

It's doesn't promote an all meat diet. The article points out that people like the Inuit and the Masai lived on a diet consisting primarily of meat and often dairy. You apparently didn't read it.

I wouldn't thrive on that diet, but despite my best attempt, I didn't thrive as a vegan.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bUU

That's always a bad idea. Generally, it is best to respond to what people actually write instead of that for which you have a ready response for. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even if things aren't nails.

I was attempting to paraphrase what you wrote in an effort to avoid this slicing and dicing and that quickly multiplies the number of responses in each post. It doesn't make sense to respond one sentence at a time. Doing so can hide the forest due to the trees. I attempted to paraphrase what you wrote, asked you if it was correct and invited you to clarify if I was wrong. That seems like a good listening practice, and it's commonly used in academia.

Originally Posted by bUU

But do you remember why? Did you read my explanation why? How can you hope to post a response without actually acknowledging and responding to my reasoning? Most of the words from my comment which you skipped over hold the answers to the challenges you raise. How about going back and reading what I already wrote rather than me copying and pasting my earlier reply?

I have read what you wrote, but I am obviously not understanding your argument. Perhaps you should actually offer clarification rather than telling me to re-read something I've just read. When I said that something being illegal doesn't make it immoral, you said:

Yes it does. No matter how many times you try to make excuses for putting your own fiat over the commitment you have to society, it is still going to be immoral. Do it enough, and it qualifies as hubris.

That isn't an explanation of why illegal things are always immoral, nor is it a distinction between illegal things being contingently immoral and illegal things being absolutely immoral. Again, I want to understand your position, and I've read your response multiple times, but if you are not suggesting the contingent position, and you are not suggesting the non-contingent position, what are you suggesting? I don't see a logically possible third position. If you are arguing that all illegal things are immoral because it involves a broken commitment to society, that is the non-contingent position.

Originally Posted by bUU

If you actually read what I wrote, and restrict your comments to that, you wouldn't have to guess. You would know what I stated, and then you'd be able to post a reply that is relevant to the comments you're replying to. Let's try it that way.

I did read what you wrote. Why are you responding with an attitude? I'm attempting to have a genuine conversation here, and I think that's best done when both parties are actually attempting to make their position clear and refrain from snarkiness.

Originally Posted by bUU

Incidentally, once you read what I wrote, you'll find that there is a third "possible claim" here - the one I actually made.

I'm not sure why you are assuming that I didn't read what you wrote, but it would be nice if you could again lay out what the third possible claim is here. I don't see the logical possibility for a third claim. If breaking a law is immoral, it is either immoral due to the nature of the action or simply because it is a law, and breaking any law is immoral. What is the third possible position?

Originally Posted by bUU

A comment that would contradict most of the rationalizations you posted earlier. Yes, we can view society as a "victim" and recognize that going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone harms that victim since it violates the rules you agreed to abide by set forth by the victim, but if I wrote that then you'd probably have responded with the exact opposite of what you posted here, complaining about how I used the word "victim" too broadly. That's why, as I said earlier, let's try having you respond to what I actually wrote rather than something you find easier to argue with.

Society cannot be a victim because society is not a conscious entity. Members of society can be victims, but society itself cannot be. "Society" is not a conscious entity.

You seem to think I'm twisting your position here, when in fact I'm just trying to understand it. Telling me to re-read your posts isn't a genuine manner of discussion.

Originally Posted by bUU

A comment that indicates that you're still blinded by black-and-white thinking and have not read or understood the comments you're replying to.

Are you honestly trying to have this discussion in a genuine manner? That counterexample is a very good one, and I would have liked you to have responded to it in a real way. If breaking any law is to some extent immoral, then it would be immoral to try to stop your neighbor from waterboarding children in that scenario. Surely you see that it wouldn't be immoral, but would rather be morally obligatory, no?

Originally Posted by bUU

Until you actually internalize what I wrote, I couldn't begin to help you understand the contradiction you posted.

Well give it a shot. If you think there's a contradiction, point it out. Stop the snarkiness and vague responses.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Gerania

It's doesn't promote an all meat diet. The article points out that people like the Inuit and the Masai lived on a diet consisting primarily of meat and often dairy. You apparently didn't read it.

I wouldn't thrive on that diet, but despite my best attempt, I didn't thrive as a vegan.

The Inuit have a genetic advantage for such a diet. They have certain genetic markers that allow the body to lower LDL and thrive on that sort of diet. Only about 3% of people with a European heritage have those markers.

The Secret To The Inuit High-Fat Diet May Be Good Genes : The Salt : NPR

[CatTX]

We can probably all agree that most omnivores will not switch to a vegan (or even vegetarian) diet, and that shaming "the relapsed" via lists or otherwise does not accomplish much. However, there is common ground because many omnivores really don't want to support factory farming livestock abuses. As consumers, all of us wield a lot of power and can put entire industries out of business if we choose to do so. To start, refuse to buy factory farmed meat whenever you can. Implement at least one meat-free day per week, it's healthy, cheaper, and reduces demand for meat. Seek out free-range meat and eggs (and produce) in your community. There are so many CSA's in various states and areas and many of them with comparable (or even cheaper) prices as supermarkets. Helping them grow will benefit all of us.

[Capt. Cave Man]

Originally Posted by CatTX

We can probably all agree that most omnivores will not switch to a vegan (or even vegetarian) diet, and that shaming "the relapsed" via lists or otherwise does not accomplish much. However, there is common ground because many omnivores really don't want to support factory farming livestock abuses. As consumers, all of us wield a lot of power and can put entire industries out of business if we choose to do so. To start, refuse to buy factory farmed meat whenever you can. Implement at least one meat-free day per week, it's healthy, cheaper, and reduces demand for meat. Seek out free-range meat and eggs (and produce) in your community. There are so many CSA's in various states and areas and many of them with comparable (or even cheaper) prices as supermarkets. Helping them grow will benefit all of us.

I don't know anyone who supports abuse, people or livestock. Not all factory farming is abusive. People abuse animals. Saying all factory farming is abusive is like saying everyone who eats meat hates animals. Simply not true.


Don't get me wrong, animals are to be respected. All food is to be respected.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man

I don't know anyone who supports abuse, people or livestock. Not all factory farming is abusive. People abuse animals. Saying all factory farming is abusive is like saying everyone who eats meat hates animals. Simply not true.

You simply don't know the facts about factory farming then. Keeping pigs in cages as small as they are kept in, or chickens in cages as small as they are kept in, is ipso facto abuse. You've said a similar bit on this forum before, and it's still clear that you need to further research factory farming methods. I'm guessing your work as a butcher might be clouding your judgment.

Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet here's a bit about how they are treated:

At just two to three weeks old, piglets are removed from their mothers and placed in large, windowless sheds without fresh air, sunlight or outdoor access. Their pens are too small and crowded for adequate movement and exercise. Ammonia fumes rise to dangerous, uncomfortable levels due to the pigs’ waste.

Pigs tend to be extremely curious and intelligent, so their barren surroundings cause them extreme frustration. The tail-biting that sometimes results leads farms to cut off pigs’ tails without painkillers. Farms also castrate baby male pigs—without painkillers—because consumers don’t like the smell and taste of uncastrated males.

Most female breeding pigs (called sows) in the U.S. spend their reproductive lives confined to a gestation crate. These crates are barely bigger than the sow’s body and prohibit her from turning around. Sows are artificially inseminated and kept in their gestation stalls until a few days before birth, at which time they are moved to equally restrictive farrowing crates to give birth. They remain there for several weeks, nursing their young, and then are placed back in their gestation crates and re-inseminated. This cycle continues for several years, until the sows are no longer as productive and are sent to slaughter.

https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty...-factory-farms

The tiny cages cause pigs to bite at the bars, and they often develop painful abscesses on their mouths. Here's a picture of the type of cages pigs are kept in:



If anyone did that to a dog, he or she would be arrested. It's obviously abuse. Due to the ag lobby in politics, however, these factory farming operations are not subject to animal cruelty laws.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man

Saying all factory farming is abusive is like saying everyone who eats meat hates animals.

If what you're saying was true, I think there would be a lot fewer vegetarians. Those with a vested interest in factory farming are very powerful and have done an excellent job of hiding the true nature of how radically different what they do is from farming 100 years ago, specifically with regard to treatment of animals (but also with regard to treatment of the environment in general). Any substantive, in-person exposure to the true nature of factory farming will evoke a good percentage of conversion to vegetarianism, just like seeing what an average smoker's lung looks like after smoking 30 years evokes a good percentage of smokers quitting once and for all.

[yellowbelle]

please refer to the sticky re: special rules for this sub forum.