Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
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.
|
Again, you are arguing points addressed in the original video. If the goal is to do the least amount of harm or cause the least amount of suffering then being vegan is the way to go because the majority of agriculture is used to feed livestock, so eliminating livestock would eliminate that many more deaths or suffering caused by agriculture.
What you are calling a straw man argument against his statements, I consider his claims to be intellectually consistent, and I find your claim that his argument is a straw man is a case of special pleading for humans. You have simply stated humans are different because we have higher thought processes, but that very fact could also imply that we can choose to get our foods in the most ethical way possible, yet we do the exact opposite. Thus, you are using a logic fallacy to refute what you believe to be a logic fallacy, but you have not proven his fallacy was false. At worst, he is using an extreme or relatable analogy because he wants to elicit a predictable response or sentiment because morality exists on a continuum and is not always so black or white. Just because the example is extreme, doesn't mean he is saying they are equal. For instance, if I describe how a murder may tie up the legs of a victim, hang them upside-down, cut their throat and allow them to hang there spasming in the air then most people would be horrified, but it isn't just because that happened to a human; it is because how it was done because if I said the murder gave them a sedative until the person went unconscious and then stopped breathing then that too would be bad, but far less horrific, and yet, the cow hanging by its legs, while different than a human, can be also seen as a horrific act. That is the nature of his analogies. I think it is harder for you to special plead why the cow is different than the human, more than it would be for him to argue why the example is not a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
This is another example of a straw man. We are talking about eating other animals. Animal cruelty is another matter. I get you think they are the same, but they are separate logical topics.
|
Well, the thread is about the planet, and eating animals has global ramifications for the planet like I have discussed, which is methane production, CO2 production, deforestation, ecological disruption, etc. On top of that, wide spread industrial farming is unethical. I have already conceded, as do most animal based eaters and vegans, that hunting causes less suffering. If someone has a farm or has chickens in their backyard that they humanly raise to slaughter or for eggs then few vegans would find it worth their time to argue against such practices, when the vast, vast, vast majority of meat production is on an industrial, unethical scale. We can address the idea that we should end industrial farming, set aside more pasture land for animals, pass laws against the types of animal cruelty that exists, and I would be for that, but then I wouldn't because it would still mean huge destruction of ecosystems and greater pollution for the planet.