Expert prognosis for the planet

[Spuds]

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.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I was thinking about going to get a dog and cat burger later too.

So curious now. Where do I get one?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

What? I hope that isn't your moral philosophy for all things.

I think the golden rule is better, and it is something that is shared across species. Very few animals kill outside of necessity, and I don't know of many that willfully torture other species when they don't have to.

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

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.

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

So curious now. Where do I get one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

Dog meat is the flesh and other edible parts derived from dogs. Historically, human consumption of dog meat has been recorded in many parts of the world. In the 21st century, dog meat is consumed in China, South Korea, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Switzerland, and it is eaten or is legal to be eaten in other countries throughout the world. Some cultures view the consumption of dog meat as part of their traditional, ritualistic, or day-to-day cuisine, and other cultures consider consumption of dog meat a taboo, even where it had been consumed in the past. Opinions also vary drastically across different regions within different countries. It was estimated in 2014 that worldwide, 25 million dogs are eaten each year by humans.

Apparently people think dogs and cats are different than other animals. Special pleading...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_an...on_Act_of_2018

The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018 (H.R. 6720), also called the DCMTPA, was a bipartisan bill outlawing the consumption of cats and dogs in the United States. It passed the House by voice vote on September 12, 2018. The Senate received it on September 17 and referred it to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It was passed by the Senate as part of the 2018 Farm Bill on December 11, 2018. The House passed the reconciled Farm Bill on December 12. On December 20, 2018, the president signed it into law.

The law penalizes "the commercial Slaughter Of cats and dogs with fines of up to $5,000". It prohibits shipping, sale and transportation of animals for the "purpose of slaughter for human consumption", except for Native American tribes performing religious ceremonies.

The bill was first introduced in March 2017 by Republican Representative Vern Buchanan and Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings. In November 2017, it passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee as part of an effort to encourage the end of the dog and cat meat trade in countries such as China, South Korea, Vietnam, and India.

The bill was promoted by animal welfare groups such as the Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation (AHWF), which saves animals from the meat trade around the world. Before the passage of the bill, the practice was rare, but still technically legal in 44 states.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I was thinking about going to get a dog and cat burger later too.

sure, i'll try it. i asked at checkers, and they said they didn't serve it.

is it more of a sit-in restaurant thing like veal? because i'm doing takeout only right now.

[Spuds]

Alright @Irace86.2.0, lets start over. I'm first going to present a summary of one logical argument in favor of people adopting veganism.

1. Causing unnecessary suffering is amoral.
2. Cruelty to animals causes unnecessary suffering of the animal.
3. Factory meat farms are cruel to animals.
4. Factory meat farms exist because the large demand for meat.
5. Vegans do not add to the demand for meat.
6. Veganism(?) is a morally responsible method of nourishment.

Now, allow me to present a straw man argument.

1. Causing unnecessary suffering is amoral.
2. Cruelty to animals causes unnecessary suffering of the animal.
3. It is cruel to make dogs fight each other for entertainment.
4. The people who engage in dog fighting activities (not air combat) are engaging in an amoral activity.
5. Eating meat is also engaging in an amoral activity.

I can follow the first thread of thinking. I can also argue against each point in that if I choose to. The video basically started with the second thread of thinking. The reason it is a straw man argument is that it links 2 different contexts that have the same root of thought, but circumvents a number of difficult arguments in the first thread with perceptively easier arguments in the other thread. That jump from 4 to 5 has no substance that can be argued.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Alright @Irace86.2.0, lets start over. I'm first going to present a summary of one logical argument in favor of people adopting veganism.

1. Causing unnecessary suffering is amoral.
2. Cruelty to animals causes unnecessary suffering of the animal.
3. Factory meat farms are cruel to animals.
4. Factory meat farms exist because the large demand for meat.
5. Vegans do not add to the demand for meat.
6. Veganism(?) is a morally responsible method of nourishment.

Now, allow me to present a straw man argument.

1. Causing unnecessary suffering is amoral.
2. Cruelty to animals causes unnecessary suffering of the animal.
3. It is cruel to make dogs fight each other for entertainment.
4. The people who engage in dog fighting activities (not air combat) are engaging in an amoral activity.
5. Eating meat is also engaging in an amoral activity.

I can follow the first thread of thinking. I can also argue against each point in that if I choose to. The video basically started with the second thread of thinking. The reason it is a straw man argument is that it links 2 different contexts that have the same root of thought, but circumvents a number of difficult arguments in the first thread with perceptively easier arguments in the other thread. That jump from 4 to 5 has no substance that can be argued.

Your analysis of his first point is not represented correctly. It went like this:

Antagonist
1. Choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
2. Personal choices aren't about morals.
3. Personal choices are about desires.
4. I desire to eat meat therefore eating meat is a moral personal choice.

This is false in the A then B context and in the circular reasoning context.

Protagonist...challenges line 2 and 3.
1. Some personal choices are falsely claimed to be personal.
2. It is not a personal choice when a choice involves another creature, especially when that choice involves the suffering of that creature.
3. Choosing to harm a person or dog is immoral because there is suffering.
4. Therefore, choosing to harm a person or dog is not a personal choice.
5. People claim that choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
6. Eating animals leads to animal suffering.
7. Needless animal suffering is immoral.
8. Therefore, the choice of needlessly eating animals is not a personal choice, and it is immoral.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Live as you wish and do good as you see it. Allow others to do the same. Period.

Different people have different views on what is good.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Different people have different views on what is good.

Which is why I pointed out that such a blanket philosophy would be stupid, but obviously this is in the context of a narrow yet broad conversation. Narrow in subject matter, yet broad in how it applies to many and not the few. For instance, for the few, I’m sure if someone wanted to eat an endangered animal or some neighbor’s pet then that might cross a line. Or if someone thought it was fine to eat a cow’s ear and discard the rest or wear a fur coat made out of Dalmatians then they might face some cultural backlash. Shoot a bald eagle and hold it up proudly as a trophy and many might not like it, but to each their own, no? Obviously we can see the few examples nullifies the validity of such a blanket statement.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The vast majority of the crops we produce and land we cultivate is produced to feed livestock.

Yeah, I knew that but I hadn't included it in my line of reasoning.
Your point is taken/acknowledged.

[Irace86.2.0]

Changing gears, there is a giant Antartica glacier that is 120,000 square miles, which is the size of New Mexico, and scientists have discovered that it is melting much faster than they thought. If this glacier breaks up into the ocean then we will see an immediate 1.5-3 foot rise in sea level and possibly worse.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/earther...1846650385/amp

All this has very serious consequences for those living along the coast. Thwaites Glacier’s collapse would raise sea levels by 1.5 to 3 feet (0.5 to 0.9 meters), and could also trigger an even worse chain of events because it could initiate the collapse of another nearby imperiled ice shelf, the Pine Island Glacier. Together, these shelves act as a braking mechanism on land ice that, if released into the open waters, could push seas up to 10 feet (3.1 meters), overwhelming coastal cities around the world.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

What? I hope that isn't your moral philosophy for all things.

I think the golden rule is better, and it is something that is shared across species. Very few animals kill outside of necessity, and I don't know of many that willfully torture other species when they don't have to.

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Different people have different views on what is good.

So, in order to fit both of your acceptable versions of morality, everyone needs to do good only as you both see fit, and as you both allow it? Got it. A very, and unfortunately, common attitide these days.

We are omnivores by nature. Our teeth and biological makeup prove that beyond question. I choose to not defy nature. If you choose otherwise, I have absolutely no problem with that.
I have also sheltered and rehabilitated countless animals, worked on dairy farms, scooped newborn calves out of manure gutters, and given lifelong homes to thirteen cats and six beloved canine friends. I have no patience for those who are cruel to animals. I also have no patience for those who view their views as the only acceptable views.

My moral compass includes a healthy dose of humility, heaping piles of gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon me, and motivation to be as helpful as I can to others. Forcing my will, my beliefs, and my opinions on others, outside of raising my children in their childhood, isn't my place. The Golden Rule is certainly a great guideline. Would either of you appreciate being lectured and admonished as you have been doing here?

Live, and let live. Change the things you feel need changing by example and through kindness.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Would either of you appreciate being lectured and admonished as you have been doing here?

Depends on how the admonishment was delivered. The result of having differing views is that people are confronted. So either we all agree on the same thing, which is not possible/likely, or we have differing views which we are allowed to express, be argued against and maybe learn to appreciate a different point of view without being offended or agree with.
But that's just my opinion lol.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Golden Rule

*Researches Golden Rule*