3 ms·
>We need food to survive. Non sequitur, food isn't synonymous with killing animals >Almost all life consumes other life for survival Appeal to popularity, al
by 1457389 10y ago
>We need food to survive.
Non sequitur, food isn't synonymous with killing animals
>Almost all life consumes other life for survival
Appeal to popularity, almost all life does all sorts of things that we don't condone or have decided is suboptimal.
>There is nothing more natural than eating.
Non sequitur and naturalistic fallacy. Eating is natural but that doesn't imply killing and eating animals is natural. Even if both are, that isn't in and of itself a valid justification for that behaviour.
- kbenson 10y agoThose arguments could be applied to just about any behavior, including not eating meat. You're presupposing the need to justify eating meat, and then using generic arguments to dismantle specific statements without point. If you want to have a useful discussion, please provide an argument..
- 1457389 10y agoYou shouldn't eat meat because its production causes animal suffering. It's pretty simple really. I presuppose the need to justify just about everything actually. Your surprise at this approach kind of explains the gaping logical holes in your previous comments. Please though, continue with your "specific" statements, I'm enjoying this. EDIT: mixed you up with the other commenter, disregard the last 3 sentences, sorry.
- in_the_sticks 10y agoYou shouldn't eat veggies because their production causes animal suffering. Ever hear of pesticide runoff?
- 1457389 10y agoplants -> livestock -> meat -> metabolic energy is less efficient than plants->metabolic energy. In the interest of minimizing suffering caused there is an obviously superior approach to providing our society with metabolic energy. Your move.
- in_the_sticks 10y agoNah, you've proved unwilling to entertain other viewpoints so I'll save my breath.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tomp 10y agoIf animals are raised responsibly (free-range, good food) and killed unconscious, there's no suffering, no?
- 1457389 10y agoYup this is true when defined narrowly enough, but impossible in practice. Plus you'd have to address the argument that cutting short a happy life is a moral harm. If we were a society that was capable of doing this at scale, there would certainly be far less of a reason to be vegan, but I hesitate to say there would be no reason at all.
- st3v3r 10y ago"Appeal to popularity, almost all life does all sorts of things that we don't condone or have decided is suboptimal." Sure it does. But eating is not one of those things. And you're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince people that eating shouldn't be condoned or is suboptimal. "Non sequitur and naturalistic fallacy." No. "Eating is natural but that doesn't imply killing and eating animals is natural." No, but the fact that it naturally happens in nature does. "Even if both are, that isn't in and of itself a valid justification for that behaviour." You haven't given valid justification for why it's not justified.