Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[turkalurk]

arent assumptions by their nature ungrounded.

to assume something is to speculate without any basis of evidence

as·sume
\ə-ˈsüm\
verb
: to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true

our knowledge is rarely certain. The stength of an inductive argument is in the general acceptability of the premises.

Technically, we only assume water will always freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. This assumption is generally accepted, because it has been verified through observation and experimentation, but it isn't necessarily certainly true and will always be true. We can't even know something as simply as that for certain.

 

[murphythecat]

good action do make the person who do the action feel good, but good action, most of the time, will also impact others beneficially sooner or later.
of course, we all do good actions because it makes us feel good, but a really good action or good state of mind do have a effect on everyone you meet in life, everyone you speak to, ect. therefore, its not totally selfish.

and making good action along generating love, wholesome thoughts is far from selfish as caring for his own well being is the most important thing you can do. you deserve your love, your care, your attention, ect.
once you apply this more and more, you dont do good action to not feel guilt, you do good action simply because it makes you feel good inside and you clearly also see that it makes other feel good everytime you meet another person.
after a while, you definitely becomes a better person, not compared to others, but compared to how you used to be. you clearly feel a progress and some things you used to feel/think/do that made you feel miserable is understood and not reproduced anymore.

I never claimed anything was wrong with it. In fact, I said it was a beautiful thing that I admire and I am glad it exists. I am just making the claim that they are in the same boat everyone else is in and doing good deeds doesn't necessarily make you better at being human, it simply means you value the way altruism makes you feel and are more avoident of actions that make you feel guilt.

 

[turkalurk]

Sorry, do you know me? If not your assumptions about me are ungrounded.

Stop this man. You are not helping yourself here.

I don't have to know you to make assumptions about the implications of your words, and apparently neither do you.

You keep whining about being offended but I asked you to explain these assumptions and how are they offensive. I am just voicing my observations just like you are and have been. I thought you were not going to engage me? Is it important for you to have the last word? Stop trying to help yourself man. its not working, here. Try to open your eyes and see things from my shoes, I am a living animal too!

 

[ForEverAfter]

Slavery is irrelevant because arguments can be made on generally accepted premises that logically follow from their conclusions and an obvious consensus can be recognized because we are better equiped at empathizing with our fellow man.

Can you translate that from lawyer-talk into English?
I'm not sure what you're saying: slavery is unquestionably wrong but torturing animals isn't? How so?

As for empathy: it comes more naturally to empathize with your own family members over other members of our species, but that doesn't mean you should treat either differently. This applies to (our treatment) other species also... They are simply twice removed.

Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not?

No, it doesn't.
In fact, it doesn't even make any sense.

You can't anthropomorphically project yourself into the shoes of a fellow man. I'm not sure you know what the word means? You appear to be attempting to elevate your point with long words, and overly complex sentence structures... and, it's backfiring.

Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized. In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.

More barely comprehensible lawyer-speak. You're saying - what - because we've already established that slavery is bad that means it can't be mentioned comparatively in an ethical debate about vegetarianism?

You realize that the precedents we set, historically, for race and gender equality influenced each other?
How is this any different.

People who studied philosophy philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason.

I disagree.

They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities.

Perhaps too confident, sometimes?

 

[murphythecat]

I don't have to know you to make assumptions about the implications of your words, and apparently neither do you.

You keep whining about being offended but I asked you to explain these assumptions and how are they offensive. I am just voicing my observations just like you are and have been. I thought you were not going to engage me? Is it important for you to have the last word? Stop trying to help yourself man. its not working, here. Try to open your eyes and see things from my shoes, I am a living animal too!

i using words like whining isnt very friendly and people respond to you in unfriendly manner because you come off a bit too strong and make a whole lot of assumptions. a whole lot. I personally have answered multiple time and every time, you simply dont answer.

 

[turkalurk]

Btw, u can continue to deflect the conversation with red herrings, but I have been graded on my logic and understanding. I am very confident, because they have been verified by my high grade point average. Its rare I didn't ace a class. I have had a few classes that discussed Buddhism. I am a very big fan of Taoism, which influenced Buddhist thought. I just disagree with your interpretation of Buddhism, and trust my instructors understanding of it over your personal opinion.

wow what do you know I even mention the exact word confidence! And look at who started what, i mentioned this in response tot he red herrings about my drunkiness and incoherence. And, I would say in this context my education is relevant and I made no fallacious claims asserting that my opinion is even right or wrong, merely I have more confidence in my opinion becausr my information is based on the education I paid tens of thousands of dollars for. I am more likely to take the word of a professor whom I paid to teach me about Buddhism, rather than a self proclaimed Buddhist whose statements contradict many credible sources.

I really don't know why I have wasted so much time. How empathetic of you to waste my time with these strawman arguments completely taken out of context? You are really grasping for straws man. tisk tisk

 

[turkalurk]

i using words like whining isnt very friendly and people respond to you in unfriendly manner because you come off a bit too strong and make a whole lot of assumptions. a whole lot. I personally have answered multiple time and every time, you simply dont answer.

do you want some cries to go with that whaaburger? I am just giving you all a taste of your own smug medicine. you make alot of assumptions about meat eaters. You act as though eating vegetables makes you superior. that can seem offensive, too. I am not offended so easily though. I won't lie and pretend that any of you are capable of hurting my feelings. just words on a screen to me representing ideas. I am not a regular, I will get bored with it and soon move on because its tiring to waste so much time arguing with irrational people.

 

[murphythecat]

again, constantly making personal attacks. you v literally attacked everyone in here. even Willow for christ sake, hes always so polite.

wow what do you know I even mention the exact word confidence! And look at who started what, i mentioned this in response tot he red herrings about my drunkiness and incoherence. And, I would say in this context my education is relevant and I made no fallacious claims asserting that my opinion is even right or wrong, merely I have more confidence in my opinion becausr my information is based on the education I paid tens of thousands of dollars for. I am more likely to take the word of a professor whom I paid to teach me about Buddhism, rather than a self proclaimed Buddhist whose statements contradict many credible sources.

I really don't know why I have wasted so much time. How empathetic of you to waste my time with these strawman arguments completely taken out of context? You are really grasping for straws man. tisk tisk

and btw, Ive spent a full year in college in religion study and have taken two buddhism class. to be honest, I know more then my teachers. a whole lot more. what they were saying and how they approched buddhism was clearly showing how little did they believe and how vague their understanding was. it was simply a intellectual class and the teacher themselve didnt even clearly knew some basic themes and avoided such central ideas and methods of practice and themes that its clear that they didnt understood buddhism. buddhism is a practice, not a belief. the belief will come with practice when you see that the practice actually shows the benefit and correlate what the great masters are teaching.

buddhism cannot be understood until you begin the practice, before that, its only intellectual. practice gives you the experience which allow one to understand and gives insight and that alone makes it possible to make true change in oneself. my teachers clearly havent applied buddhism teaching so their classes was basically useless. but thats my opinion, ymmv.

 

[turkalurk]

Can you translate that from lawyer-talk into English?
I'm not sure what you're saying: slavery is unquestionably wrong but torturing animals isn't? How so?

As for empathy: it comes more naturally to empathize with your own family members over other members of our species, but that doesn't mean you should treat either differently. This applies to (our treatment) other species also... They are simply twice removed.



No, it doesn't.
In fact, it doesn't even make any sense.

You can't anthropomorphically project yourself into the shoes of a fellow man. I'm not sure you know what the word means? You appear to be attempting to elevate your point with long words, and overly complex sentence structures... and, it's backfiring.



More barely comprehensible lawyer-speak. You're saying - what - because we've already established that slavery is bad that means it can't be mentioned comparatively in an ethical debate about vegetarianism?

You realize that the precedents we set, historically, for race and gender equality influenced each other?
How is this any different.



I disagree.



Perhaps too confident, sometimes?

ok, you win, you irrationally naggd me into submission. I am so tired of repeating myself it would be insane for me to continue. Empathy is projecting yourself into the shoes of another. When you do this with any other creature it is called anthromorphism. We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics. However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.

I must be obsessed with being understood because here I am wasting more time on an explanation that will only fall on deaf ears.

 

[murphythecat]

We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics. However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.

and you project the idea that the animals cannot feel, just like you, the same emotions.

because its tiring to waste so much time arguing with irrational people.

we are all irrational but you it seems. normally, when someone disagree with everyone, hes the one to fault. everyone in this thread have answered you and honestly destroyed all you arguments, only you cannot answer any of them adequately and resort to personal attacks constantly.

 

[turkalurk]

[ebola: hi. how about you don't post personal communications with (mildly) identifying information in public venues. Thanks]
-------

Original Post:
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/showthread.php?p=12949868
Quote Originally Posted by ForEverAfter View Post
^You going to answer this, turk?

1. Who claimed to be "uber-compassionate", on this thread / website?
(tip: don't use "uber" in English sentences).

2. If you fail to empathize with slave owners does that make you smug or narcissistic?
If not, why? Shouldn't it, according to your ridiculous logic?

3. Minoring or majoring in philosophy seems to invariably make people think can out-argue other people's philosophical positions... The only reason I can see that you're so invested in countering the vegetarian argument, is the (repressed) guilt you feel... Either that, or you're upset because you got rejected by Ninae... What am I missing?

...



You appear to not understand the word ego, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
According to your logic, what, all good deeds are egotistical? (That's stupid.)
so, you intend to convince me I am wrong by acting smug about my use of language? fascinating! Yes, tje claim was actually made in what you quoted that their position was based on the empathy and compassion for life. I suppose that empathy doesn't apply to those I argue with. Look at the way you try hurt my feelings with your attempt to publicly humiliate me with your perceived rejection. Are you trying to harm me ego? How nice if you to eat vegetables and treat your fellow man like crap.

Slavery is irrelevant because arguments can be made on generally accepted premises that logically follow from their conclusions and an obvious consensus can be recognized because we are better equiped at empathizing with our fellow man. Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not?

Also, based on my initial framework of universalization, a law outlawing slavery can and has been as universalized. In other words, you have presented another fallacious argument known as the false analogy.

People who studied philosophy philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason. They are usually more confident in their reasoning abilities. I never suggested that my education should make more opinion more valid. I used it to inform you that attempts to use errors in my spelling or sentence structure, will not shake my confidence in my reasoning abilities. Attempts to make me feel insecure are futile. Nina herself could ridicule my attempts to compliment her and I would only laugh it off. Like I said, it supports my hypothesis that it has more to do with ego because you sure don't seem very compassionate to me!

All good deeds benefit the self in some way. Altruism feels good and I am glad it does. I don't believe any action is selfless, bit rather unselfish or nonselfish. Selfishness implies that an action benefits the self at the expense of or without the consideration of others.

Everyone has ego, its part of being human. Egoism and Egotism represent the unhealthy egoic tendencies.


e·go
ˈēɡō/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"a boost to my ego"
synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence
"the defeat was a bruise to his ego"
PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.


Quick Reply
Message:
Submit Message
Submit Message
Log Out Top
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


I have not been using smugness out of context, it is completely relevant to the discussion and I have explained that is a simple observational criticism not something to be taking personally. I have even admitted to coming off smug myself. Its human to feel smug about our ethical principles.

However, after a taste of this mod showing obvious bias by flexing his muscles, I am bored with this place already. What an empathetic and compassionate group you vegetarians have been. You sure showed me I was wrong about yas!

 

[turkalurk]

and you project the idea that the animals cannot feel, just like you, the same emotions.


we are all irrational but you it seems. normally, when someone disagree with everyone, hes the one to fault. everyone in this thread have answered you and honestly destroyed all you arguments, only you cannot answer any of them adequately and resort to personal attacks constantly.

argumentum ad populum

 

[murphythecat]

argumentum ad populum

e·go
ˈēɡō/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence

However, after a taste of this mod showing obvious bias by flexing his muscles, I am bored with this place already. What an empathetic and compassionate group you vegetarians have been. You sure showed me I was wrong about yas!

 

[RichardMooner]

You need to re-read it.
I was responding to something you said, not RM..
So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
RM never said any such thing.



It's such an easy stupid argument.
It's OBVIOUSLY wrong. I've already explained why.
Care to respond to this:



??

Whether we would or wouldn't like something is irrelevant. You can separate feelings and logic because they're completely different things.

 

[swilow]

Well, this got weird

 

[ForEverAfter]

When you do this with any other creature it is called anthromorphism. We project human characteristics and emotions onto creatures that are not human and most likely have no such emotions are characteristics. However, by definition, it is more appropriate to project human emotions and characteristics onto a human because we can reasonably assume another human would possess human characteristics.

It's anthropomorphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...

Anthromorphically projecting ourselves into the shoes of a fellow man seems pretty ontologically more appropriate than projecting it onto other species of animals does it not?

...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.

You can separate feelings and logic because they're completely different things.

You can't completely separate them, though, because they overlap.
I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.

...

Examples.

1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.

2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.

3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand why we feel good.

...

Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[RichardMooner]

It's anthropomorphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...



...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.



You can't completely separate them, though, because they overlap.
I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.

...

Examples.

1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.

2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.

3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand why we feel good.

...

Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not talking about any convictions specifically.

Your first example gives a logical explanation for why someone might be afraid of dogs, not why it is logical to be afraid of dogs.

The second one provides no explanation for why someone might feel bad for eating meat, nor does it explain why it is bad to eat meat. You just said vegetarians feel bad for eating meat.

There is a logical explanation for why sex feels good, but that doesn't mean sex is good.

You've described several scenarios that reinforce my original point. Reason cannot define an objective right and wrong, therefore, something that is not confined to reason has to exist for objective right and wrong to exist.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I was just giving you some simple examples of how feelings and logic can overlap.
Sometimes, you need to do a bit of work (read between the lines)

1. It is logical to be afraid of dogs because they might bite you.
2. The absence of any logical reason why we should eat meat means that we - logically - shouldn't, since it causes unnecessary suffering.
3. Sex is good, logically, because feels good and without it we wouldn't be here.

You've described several scenarios that reinforce my original point.

You took something out of context.
What I said initially was: logic cannot be separated absolutely from feelings, because they overlap.
You said, in response, that you can separate them (removing the words overlap and absolutely).

Why is hurting another person wrong?

Hurting another person is wrong both because it feels wrong, and because we can explain why it is wrong. You can argue until the end of time that there is no such thing as (objective) wrong and right, for convenience sake, but I don't believe you actually live your life like that.

If someone raped your sister, would you entertain the idea that it's only a matter of perspective as to whether or not that was a "wrong" thing to do?
I seriously doubt it.

...

I feel like a lot of the responses from non-vegans/vegetarians are sort of like this:

Vegan: It's wrong to eat meat.
Meat Eater: What's wrong?
(Fat Tony: What's a truck?)

 

[RichardMooner]

I was just giving you some simple examples of how feelings and logic can overlap.
Sometimes, you need to do a bit of work (read between the lines)

1. It is logical to be afraid of dogs because they might bite you.
2. The absence of any logical reason why we should eat meat means that we - logically - shouldn't, since it causes unnecessary suffering.
3. Sex is good, logically, because feels good and without it we wouldn't be here.



You took something out of context.
What I said initially was: logic cannot be separated absolutely from feelings, because they overlap.
You said, in response, that you can separate them (removing the words overlap and absolutely).



Hurting another person is wrong both because it feels wrong, and because we can explain why it is wrong. You can argue until the end of time that there is no such thing as (objective) wrong and right, for convenience sake, but I don't believe you actually live your life like that.

If someone raped your sister, would you entertain the idea that it's only a matter of perspective as to whether or not that was a "wrong" thing to do?
I seriously doubt it.

...

I feel like a lot of the responses from non-vegans/vegetarians are sort of like this:

Vegan: It's wrong to eat meat.
Meat Eater: What's wrong?
(Fat Tony: What's a truck?)

Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of?
Why is suffering bad?
If we did not exist we could not suffer, it is not necessary to exist, there is no logical reason to exist, if suffering is wrong, logically, we should not exist.

Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other.

We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can. I do not live my life that way because I believe in an objective right and wrong, but I can't define it using reason.

See above for the answer to that question.

Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant. If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of?

That doesn't deserve an answer.

Why is suffering bad?

I don' think anybody on this thread said suffering is bad.
Inflicting suffering unnecessarily on others is bad.
I've already explained why.

Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other.

We're going in circles, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can.

I already have, and you haven't countered it (at all).

Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant.

Whether or not you apply the value system that you're proposing (in which there is no right or wrong) to your life, is certainly relevant to whether or not you actually believe it.

If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.

If pedophilia isn't wrong, and it's just a matter of perspective, why do we punish pedophiles?
I mean who is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as our own?
Perhaps we should allow pedophiles to molest children?

you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.

I'm not sure I actually ever said that, by the way.