3 ms·

> That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Why is it always the responsibility, throughout history, of a vocal minority to convince

by noondip 11y ago

> That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Why is it always the responsibility, throughout history, of a vocal minority to convince others that violence against a group is wrong? No, empathy isn't my personal view, it is shared by any rational and sane person, who will agree animals have an inherent right to be free of pain and suffering. Or do you dare assert humans have an exclusive monopoly on freedom? > You are always free to eat organic. Good grief. Organic poison is still poison. Please see this page for many cited examples of health benefits from a vegan diet, and risks of a non-vegan one: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ > it's supported by a paper backed by a vegan lobbying organisation Just as claims that milk, cheese, egg and meat products are necessary are lobbied by animal agriculture organizations. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-could-the-usda-get-any-cheesier/ http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-c...

matthewmacleod 11y ago
any rational and sane person, who will agree animals have an inherent right to be free of pain and suffering If that is the case, then such a view can obviously not require vegetarianism or veganism. Unless you are claiming that 'any rational and sane person' is a vegetarian or vegan – a dubious claim. I'm a big fan of ethical treatment of animals used for food production. It's just that my ethical standards apparently differ from yours. That doesn't make them invalid. Organic poison is still poison. Your point was specifically about produce being 'filled with junk' – in this case, hormones. That's the point I was disputing. I don't disagree that vegan diets have the potential to be healthy. Your argument commits the typical fallacy of drawing unwarranted conclusions, however; vegan diets tend to be healthier compared to average omnivorous diets, but this is typically due to reduced consumption of saturated fats, increased consumption of dietary fibre and so on. Veganism is not a prerequisite for improving one's diet. Just as claims that milk, cheese, egg and meat products are necessary are lobbied by animal agriculture organizations. Yes, and I don't agree with those either. It's obvious that it's possible to be vegan. The difference is that I didn't use those studies in defence of my point; you did.
- noondip 11y ago
  > I'm a big fan of ethical treatment of animals used for food production. This is an utter logical fallacy. There is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals used for food production, just as there is no such thing as ethical slaughter, ethical rape, or happy and humane slavery. No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated. You may be interested to learn that Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo commander responsible for deaths of many people, ordered as a "more humane means" of execution the use of poison gas in specially constructed chambers disguised as shower rooms.
  - eclipxe 11y ago
    >No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated. Why?
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    This is an utter logical fallacy. There is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals used for food production, just as there is no such thing as ethical slaughter, ethical rape, or happy and humane slavery. No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated It's not a fallacy - we just don't agree on ethical boundaries. I'm completely comfortable, from an ethical standpoint, with animals being used for food production. Clearly that's a popular view globally. You may be interested to learn that Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo commander responsible for deaths of many people, ordered as a "more humane means" of execution the use of poison gas in specially constructed chambers disguised as shower rooms. That's a cliché reductio ad Hitlerum. I'm not sure what your point is, aside from "bad people can do bad things*.

by noondip 11y ago

matthewmacleod 11y ago

any rational and sane person, who will agree animals have an inherent right to be free of pain and suffering If that is the case, then such a view can obviously not require vegetarianism or veganism. Unless you are claiming that 'any rational and sane person' is a vegetarian or vegan – a dubious claim. I'm a big fan of ethical treatment of animals used for food production. It's just that my ethical standards apparently differ from yours. That doesn't make them invalid. Organic poison is still poison. Your point was specifically about produce being 'filled with junk' – in this case, hormones. That's the point I was disputing. I don't disagree that vegan diets have the potential to be healthy. Your argument commits the typical fallacy of drawing unwarranted conclusions, however; vegan diets tend to be healthier compared to average omnivorous diets, but this is typically due to reduced consumption of saturated fats, increased consumption of dietary fibre and so on. Veganism is not a prerequisite for improving one's diet. Just as claims that milk, cheese, egg and meat products are necessary are lobbied by animal agriculture organizations. Yes, and I don't agree with those either. It's obvious that it's possible to be vegan. The difference is that I didn't use those studies in defence of my point; you did.

noondip 11y ago
> I'm a big fan of ethical treatment of animals used for food production. This is an utter logical fallacy. There is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals used for food production, just as there is no such thing as ethical slaughter, ethical rape, or happy and humane slavery. No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated. You may be interested to learn that Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo commander responsible for deaths of many people, ordered as a "more humane means" of execution the use of poison gas in specially constructed chambers disguised as shower rooms.
- eclipxe 11y ago
  >No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated. Why?
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  This is an utter logical fallacy. There is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals used for food production, just as there is no such thing as ethical slaughter, ethical rape, or happy and humane slavery. No commodification of another body is ethical, nor should be tolerated It's not a fallacy - we just don't agree on ethical boundaries. I'm completely comfortable, from an ethical standpoint, with animals being used for food production. Clearly that's a popular view globally. You may be interested to learn that Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo commander responsible for deaths of many people, ordered as a "more humane means" of execution the use of poison gas in specially constructed chambers disguised as shower rooms. That's a cliché reductio ad Hitlerum. I'm not sure what your point is, aside from "bad people can do bad things*.