Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0
Again, equate implies equal or the same, which is different than suggesting there is intellectual consistency. If people wouldn't eat a dog or treat a dog like a pig or chicken in a factory farm because of moral reasons then don't treat a pig or chicken like the video I posted where they are being tortured. You seem to have a very low perspective of animal intelligence. Could you not tell the difference between an abused dog and a happy dog? Do you really think a pig, cow or chicken is incapable of pain and suffering?
Again, it is clear you didn't watch the video because you continue to regurgitate arguments that were discussed in the video. Like he mentions, the move to veganism isn't going to happen overnight, so as demand decreases, production of livestock decreases, so there won't be a need to suddenly release all the animals like you describe. |
There is only an intellectual consistency if you consider animals somehow equivalent to humans along some dimension of thought. If you are saying to that point that anything with a nervous system (specifically inclusive of neuron cells) is equivalent, then are you saying we shouldn't kill any bugs? Do we have to be careful of stepping on anthills too? Should we allow pests to harm crops that we need to eat? Is owning pets morally wrong as well, since we say you cannot own a human? Both have a nervous system after all.
The point is that while you can point to some similarity between all these moral dilemmas, they each are in a completely separate context, and thus change the topic of debate. The speaker has attempted to sway our opinion by arguing against another problem entirely, then trying to associate that with the current topic. Put another way, he presented a different argument to which he believes his audience agrees with him, then presented the original argument to which he hopes to convince his audience to agree with him. The primary connection between them is that he has taken a position on both arguments that he feels is consistent with some definition of morality. His personal position is not a robust logical connection. Hence it is a straw man.
There are plenty of other valid reasons to change our meat production and consumption practices, but using a logical fallacy is not a great start to your presentation.