Also, using fun latin like ad hominem, for example, isn't much of a mark of intelligence here. People in lesser portions of the internet fall beneath good vocab (Or call you a faggot, but that's something else entirely) but here on Hubski, we have dictionaries, and we're not afraid to use them. Preach. On hubski, feelings aren't as good as facts, and appeals to emotion in debate without anything to back them up are going to get you nowhere. I'm working on eating less meat and more vegetables because 1.) I need more vitaminos and less protein in my life, and veggies are a great way to do that. 2.) vegetables are delicious and I want to find more ways to include their deliciousness in my diet. Do I dislike factory farming? of course, that's why I try to buy local (it's usually better quality anyways, and I like supporting my local economy). However, at the end of the day i look out for Number One, and if my body says "I need to eat NOW" and Wendy's is the closest option i have time for, then factory farmed chicken it is. I have places I don't shop for "political" reasons, and same for places i don't eat. I think a lot of this falls under The discussion we had in this thread. Some people care incredibly about factory farming, or about the long term effects of our diet on our ecosystem. Other people just want a burger so that they can get back to working on our huge homeless vet problem or finding ways to get Thorium reactors up and running, or are looking for ways to solve the ongoing crisis between Israel and Palestine. Don't hate on people for having passions and causes that they find more important than yours, is what i'm saying, I guess.Having an unpopular opinion on Hubski is not a bad thing. As long as you can defend it, and can discuss it in the framework that seems to be consensus.
This here is the very crux of the issue. organicAnt, your argument is appealing to an emotional response within the listener. If the listener doesn't have that same emotional foreground as you, you literally having nothing to back up your points. Wouldn't cows prefer to live? Don't I feel sorry for factory farmed animals? Why and do I need to eat meat? Is there scientific reason to eat meat? All irrelevant. You must provide at least some objective, scientific grounding or formal argument for your statement, otherwise you're just expressing emotion based opinions. Which, as subjective opinions, are very messy to formally debate.On hubski, feelings aren't as good as facts, and appeals to emotion in debate without anything to back them up are going to get you nowhere.
I agree that we shouldn't allow negative emotions to drive our decisions but I find it quite sad and heartless when people don't see any value in empathy and compassion. I don't know how we can ever live peacefully among ourselves and other species if we don't allow positive emotions, which connect us to drive our values. But that's another topic. That's fine, let's play by your rules of debate. There are plenty of scientific reasons not to eat meat. The health and environmental benefits of a plant based diet are extensive. BLOB_CASTLE mentioned the emission of gases exacerbating climate change. There's also the fact that growing animals for food uses way more resources than eating plants directly. This is particularly important with the growing global population. Animal foods are known to be the cause of many diseases currently affecting modern western society. Heart disease, stroke and certain cancers are some of the top deadly diseases caused by meat eating. There you go, 3 major (non-emotional) reasons not to eat meat: health, environment, resources.
No one is saying that empathy isn't valuable. What most of us are saying, is that we cannot default on empathy as an end of reason. You cannot just appeal to 'our better natures' and expect us to come over to your side. Vegetarianism has caused at least one death, and that of an infant. Adults make their choices, can you say the same for a baby?
Are you seriously comparing the irresponsibility of a vegetarian couple with the death of thousands of people due to consumption of animal products?!
There will always be irresponsible people regardless of background or ethical values, we can agree on that much. As I said in another reply any diet can be unhealthy upon the ignorance of nutritional requirements of the human body. Heck a lot of omnivores are deficient in vitamins and minerals for lack of eating enough veggies. The same way veggie diets can be deficient in certain nutrients due to carelessness. However, the difference of scale does matter. Taking an isolated example which is an exception to the rule and trying to compare it with the systemic health issues caused by meat eating is not a fair comparison by far and you know it. You're clutching at straws here.
When I ignore scale, i'm using to illustrate a point. The reason that you're more upset about the genocide of animals than the death of a human child, is because of scale, not because of kind. If we had your ideal system, we would have systemic problems resulting from the mass institution of veganism. Including most likely the mass enslavement of a significant portion of the human population to produce the amount of necessary complex plant proteins and fats. You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
Seriously?! I honestly don't understand how you get to this conclusion using logic. I'm too tired to take this even remotely seriously.You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
I appreciate the response. Personally, I have no interest at present in debating for/against meat consumption. I enjoy eating meat as part of balanced diet and that's all there is to it. I was merely trying to clarify why others might not have been accepting your prior arguments.
I think we should give much more credit to the reality of our thoughts and emotions creating reality. Subjective arguments are just as valid ob objective ones in any conversation.
Oh yeah man, for sure. I'm all for discussions of consciousness and how we perceive reality. They are of course incredibly powerful experiences and we should always be exploring how our own minds work and our reactions to the world. All I'm suggesting is that for such a substantial issue such as this, one should have incisive argument that rests on more than emotional basis.
Emotional arguments do not get resolved. If we do not work from facts and instead work from how each of us feels, then the more emotive person wins... or closes the discussion. At this point, I want to lock the doors on this anger festival. We're all pissed off, and we keep needing to type more to unravel that. The more we post here, the more popular this thread looks. However it's the least productive thread, least Hubski-like thread.