4 ms·

You should reach a conclusion based on your beliefs. I don't see what point you prove by starting from beliefs you don't hold if that's what you mean. Do you g

You should reach a conclusion based on your beliefs. I don't see what point you prove by starting from beliefs you don't hold if that's what you mean. Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins and whales and eating dogs though? I've no doubt some people exist that don't but I'm sure they're in the vast minority.

bluefirebrand 6y ago
> Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins and whales and eating dogs though No, but I do genuinely not care that people are killing and eating cows and cow products though. I don't really think anything could make me care about that at this point, certainly not enough to give up meat and cheese. So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent.
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the difference to yourself. I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons (which other countries could make about dogs and whales) for example.
  - bluefirebrand 6y ago
    > I'm not making anything equivalent Ok you say that, but your question > Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? implies equivalence. Without that equivalence the answer is obvious: Because they are different. It's ok to treat different things differently. But ok, so let's talk about equivalence. Obviously cows and whales are both mammals. Maybe that's why I should treat them the same. So is it ok to eat non-mammals? Snakes and lizards and fish? Why? They're still animals. So let's say it's not ok to eat animals. So we should eat plants. Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them. Okay so it's not ok to kill and eat anything. So we starve. Obviously this is silly and reductive and does not represent reality. We have to eat. May as well eat cow.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      > Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them. Why not stop at killing things that have a nervous system that clearly react with pain? Even if you want to argue plants feel pain, eating plants only is causing the least pain because animal farming requires more plants to die.
  - mastazi 6y ago
    > I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      > Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy You can use this fallacy to justify lots of awful things humans used to do are fine.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

bluefirebrand 6y ago

> Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins and whales and eating dogs though No, but I do genuinely not care that people are killing and eating cows and cow products though. I don't really think anything could make me care about that at this point, certainly not enough to give up meat and cheese. So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent.

seanwilson 6y ago
> So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the difference to yourself. I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons (which other countries could make about dogs and whales) for example.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  > I'm not making anything equivalent Ok you say that, but your question > Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? implies equivalence. Without that equivalence the answer is obvious: Because they are different. It's ok to treat different things differently. But ok, so let's talk about equivalence. Obviously cows and whales are both mammals. Maybe that's why I should treat them the same. So is it ok to eat non-mammals? Snakes and lizards and fish? Why? They're still animals. So let's say it's not ok to eat animals. So we should eat plants. Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them. Okay so it's not ok to kill and eat anything. So we starve. Obviously this is silly and reductive and does not represent reality. We have to eat. May as well eat cow.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them. Why not stop at killing things that have a nervous system that clearly react with pain? Even if you want to argue plants feel pain, eating plants only is causing the least pain because animal farming requires more plants to die.
- mastazi 6y ago
  > I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy You can use this fallacy to justify lots of awful things humans used to do are fine.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]