danielmims

5 ms·

1.
by danielmims 17y ago
No, several questions are being debated. The comment you refer to also asked why eating should be considered evil. And the question of whether or not humans have evolved to eat meat, especially to eat meat anywhere near the levels that West
2.
by danielmims 17y ago
Wow. Thanks for reading, I guess.
3.
by danielmims 17y ago
First, again again again, we are not just talking about "killing animals for food." We are talking about torturing them for their entire lives and then killing them. Second, you say you think "killing [animals] for food is OK." Can you plea
4.
by danielmims 17y ago
I'm obviously not saying humans don't have a single trait in common with some predators. Humans have blood, for example. Get over your indignation at being challenged and think about what you say. That'd be nice. To answer your question, th
5.
by danielmims 17y ago
Why the downmodding? Because you don't like sound arguments and facts? Further confirming the greatness of your species, I guess.
6.
by danielmims 17y ago
Humans did not "evolve eating meat." Yes, they began to eat meat relatively recently, but only during winter periods after migrating into colder climates. Even then, humans ate almost no meat when plant food was abundant, during warmer seas
7.
by danielmims 17y ago
There's quite a lot to say in response, but I'll limit the scope of it to two of your points, and I'll try to be brief with each. (1) "My species is more important to me than theirs." Our species is only more important in a very big way: we
8.
by danielmims 17y ago
And again! I suppose some people don't believe they should have to justify themselves.
9.
by danielmims 17y ago
Voting me down for saying this: "How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something." Whoever did it, you're realllly smart.
10.
by danielmims 17y ago
You're going to deny that the degree of something isn't relevant to its severity? Seriously?
11.
by danielmims 17y ago
How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something.
12.
by danielmims 17y ago
Evgen, the system isn't letting me reply to you directly for some reason, so my apologies if this garbles the thread. What you have written is so riddled with logical fallacies I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. You said:
13.
by danielmims 17y ago
How would it be "poetic justice" for a vegan, who cares for other living things, to be malnourished? They're just being not evil . Of course, being vegan has all kinds of eprsonal health benefits in addition to its benefits for others. Veg
14.
by danielmims 17y ago
"While jeremymims didn't explicitly espouse a vegan viewpoint, he did mention the "slaughter [of] 10 billion sentient, thinking animals", an emotionally charged choice of words which in my experience is a characterization that only ever com
15.
by danielmims 17y ago
The significance of a hamburger being comprised of many different pieces of multiple cows is that it's hard to track and there are higher-risk meats than others. For example, meat that resided near the intestines/colon has a much a higher r
16.
by danielmims 17y ago
The scientific evidence supporting the similarity of other animals' experiences of the world to humans' experiences is indeed "mounting." It shouldn't have to, because the incredibly evidenced theory of evolution -- the single unifying idea
17.
by danielmims 17y ago
Unpredictability (or randomness) does not preserve the possibility of free will. One must have control over the process. That's really the basis of why we care about free will in the first place -- control.
18.
by danielmims 17y ago
"If we feel it, then it's real." The word "real" loses all meaning once we start saying that what we feel -- any old fantasy, delusion, speculation -- is real. We also indulge one of the central fantasies of human reflexive identity -- that
19.
by danielmims 17y ago
Good points. I would take it a bit further by noting that a defense of non-trivial free will cannot rely upon quantum mechanics (or any other engine of unpredictability). By non-trivial free will, I mean a kind of free will that allows for
20.
by danielmims 17y ago
Importantly, even if effect doesn't necessarily follow cause (also known as "indeterminism"), free will isn't possible. Hence free will is absolutely impossible, alongside any conditions whatsoever.