Are humans made to naturally eat meat

[Mjäll]

are you a moral realist?


well my rhetoric so far has attracted three challengers. all of whom have failed to answer the above point. so, i'm amused thanks.

i wasn't exactly *serious* about being on topic. i bought it up because you dared challenge me, but you offered nothing of substance. and still haven't


i don't really care for it. you either face the facts or you don't. take your flim flam machine elsewhere.


my starting point is i have no right to kill a being that wants to live when i dont have to. im not even bothered about my health to be fair. i just aint contributing to the death of the critters i adore.

and seeing as the study suggests vegans are more healthy, the evolutionary/health argument does not work in your favour.

I'm a moral agnostic, i suppose. I'm really flexible with morals. I can jive with moral realism. What does that have to do with this topic?

Your absolute categorical refusal to eat animals is not a functioning argument among humans. It may be your starting point, but it's not a universal human starting point. The environmental argument has better chances because it pertains to our common interests as a species. It appeals more directly to self-interest.

Regarding health, that's a meta-analysis of correlational studies and likely confounded by things like a more health and food conscious attitude among vegans. It really doesn't make sense that an abstinence from animal products would benefit an omnivore, and we need more than surface correlations in order to determine such a thing.

This is not what i came to discuss though. Feel free to think i was complaining about your rhetoric for lack of ability to counter the arguments. I really was just more interested in commenting that, though.

The part about you not at all intending to convince, but rather to just fuck around and amuse yourself (while engaging in serious arguments about a potentially life-threatening global issue and refusing to go off topic) still isn't very believable. I'm starting to forget why that became relevant but still worth pointing out i suppose.

 

[extropy]

Yes you are. You just aren't eating them.

This is true, maybe I should have rephrased (but I did hit this point earlier). vegans don’t claim to have solved the problem of causing no animal harm, we try to minimise it. And we are simply saying it’s pretty damn easy to start with what you put in your belly 3 times a day.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel I am causing harm to animals? Are you talking about crop deaths or the fossil fuel thing?

Small hands. Smell like cabbage.

Lol, ok Austin, you have a point, I meant carnists!

That's not veganism, though. I don't understand how you can say scallops are okay to eat because they don't have brains and veganism wins?

so maybe you caught me using a rhetorical device here (don’t tell mjall), I was invoking sentience (will to live, emotion etc) for argument sake. You know you’ve fallen back to the most moral grey area you could find to make your point right? But I can see you are taking the argument to its extremes so fair enough. I personally wouldn’t harm (or at least do my best) any being that has the capacity to feel pain, unless I’m acting in self defence. Scallops have nerves and therefore the potential to feel pain so I wouldn’t eat them. vegans should not eat scallops.

Allow me to refine my question then – do you think you have the right to kill an animal for sense pleasure?

(And seeing as you’re old and probably set in your ways, I may Grandfather you in to my Vegan Empire if you promised that your only source of meat would be scallops.)

 

[Mjäll]

so maybe you caught me using a rhetorical device here (don’t tell mjall), I was invoking sentience (will to live, emotion etc) for argument sake. You know you’ve fallen back to the most moral grey area you could find to make your point right? But I can see you are taking the argument to its extremes so fair enough. I personally wouldn’t harm (or at least do my best) any being that has the capacity to feel pain, unless I’m acting in self defence. Scallops have nerves and therefore the potential to feel pain so I wouldn’t eat them. vegans should not eat scallops.

Allow me to refine my question then – do you think you have the right to kill an animal for sense pleasure?

(And seeing as you’re old and probably set in your ways, I may Grandfather you in to my Vegan Empire if you promised that your only source of meat would be scallops.)

Hunch confirmed i guess?

Humor as an excuse for habitual condescension. Serious global issues as ego fuel. Kindness to animals as a disguise for arrogance toward other humans. Veganism as a moral trump.

My hunches are usually good.

 

[extropy]

I'm a moral agnostic, i suppose. I'm really flexible with morals. I can jive with moral realism. What does that have to do with this topic?

you said my claim that 'it is objectively immoral to kill an animal when there's no need' was no good. i asked if you were a moral realist, to check your position on my statement. what i'm trying to say is, what is your problem with my claim? you just said it doesn't work and i want to know why.

Your absolute categorical refusal to eat animals is not a functioning argument among humans. It may be your starting point, but it's not a universal human starting point.

^see above for my argument. i'm not repeating it for a 3rd time.

The environmental argument has better chances because it pertains to our common interests as a species. It appeals more directly to self-interest.

so why aren't you vegan then?

Regarding health, that's a meta-analysis of correlational studies and likely confounded by things like a more health and food conscious attitude among vegans. It really doesn't make sense that an abstinence from animal products would benefit an omnivore, and we need more than surface correlations in order to determine such a thing.

oh ok, so you're just gonna ignore the data, that's your right.

This is not what i came to discuss though.

what did you come to discuss then pal? ok let's go off topic then like you want. you tell me, what's going in up there in that mind of yours? indulge me.

Feel free to think i was complaining about your rhetoric for lack of ability to counter the arguments.

um, you were, and you haven't made an argument for me to counter, you've literally just hand waved my points away.

I really was just more interested in commenting that, though.

yeh i know, i said this in my first or second reply to you - you just came by to make meaningless comments. glad we agree.

The part about you not at all intending to convince, but rather to just fuck around and amuse yourself (while engaging in serious arguments about a potentially life-threatening global issue and refusing to go off topic) still isn't very believable.

but the real question is, did i trigger you? and the answer is yes.

I'm starting to forget why that became relevant but still worth pointing out i suppose.

so again you're just making meaningless comments without being able to back them up?

 

[extropy]

Hunch confirmed i guess?

our very own Sherlock Holmes. put the pipe down mate

Humor as an excuse for habitual condescension. Serious global issues as ego fuel. Kindness to animals as a disguise for arrogance toward other humans. Veganism as a moral trump.
My hunches are usually good.

ok dude whatever

 

[Mjäll]

you said my claim that 'it is objectively immoral to kill an animal when there's no need' was no good. i asked if you were a moral realist, to check your position on my statement. what i'm trying to say is, what is your problem with my claim? you just said it doesn't work and i want to know why.

^see above for my argument. i'm not repeating it for a 3rd time.


so why aren't you vegan then?

oh ok, so you're just gonna ignore the data, that's your right.

what did you come to discuss then pal? ok let's go off topic then like you want. you tell me, what's going in up there in that mind of yours? indulge me.

um, you were, and you haven't made an argument for me to counter, you've literally just hand waved my points away.


yeh i know, i said this in my first or second reply to you - you just came by to make meaningless comments. glad we agree.


but the real question is, did i trigger you? and the answer is yes.

so again you're just making meaningless comments without being able to back them up?

Now you're doing that old trick of maximizing separate quote-subthreads in order to exhaust the enemy. Is it conscious or unconscious?

Pointing out that a study is merely correlational amounts to real criticism in the scientific community. Reducing such criticism to "hand waving points away" ironically constitutes hand waving points away. Thanks for confirming your ignorance and revealing your shallow treatment of this topic.

Humans are omnivores, and that is more real than your alleged moral realism regarding meat consumption.

Why would i be vegan? Why is that your business? Why do you consume electricity?

 

[Mjäll]

our very own Sherlock Holmes. put the pipe down mate


ok dude whatever

I don't smoke a pipe.

Yeah you know it.

 

[extropy]

Now you're doing that old trick of maximizing separate quote-subthreads in order to exhaust the enemy. Is it conscious or unconscious?

lolol ok dude that's funny, 'maximising separate quote threads' lolol

buddy you're not my enemy, you're my Apprentice.

Pointing out that a study is merely correlational amounts to real criticism in the scientific community. Reducing such criticism to "hand waving points away" ironically constitutes hand waving points away. Thanks for confirming your ignorance and revealing your shallow treatment of this topic.

i have already accepted it's correlational you plonker, I'M THE ONE THAT POSTED IT. simply stating what should be clear from the outset is not really an argument.

Humans are omnivores, and that is more real than your alleged moral realism regarding meat consumption.

normally humans have the ability to reason their way to greater liberty for all, but it's clearly not present in everyone

Why would i be vegan?

do you have pets?

Why is that your business?

um, it's on topic (give or take)

Why do you consume electricity?

let Birdup handle that one mate

 

[Mjäll]

lolol ok dude that's funny, 'maximising separate quote threads' lolol

buddy you're not my enemy, you're my Apprentice.

i have already accepted it's correlational you plonker, I'M THE ONE THAT POSTED IT. simply stating what should be clear from the outset is not really an argument.


normally humans have the ability to reason their way to greater liberty for all, but it's clearly not present in everyone


do you have pets?


um, it's on topic (give or take)


let Birdup handle that one mate

Funny cause it's true or what? You make separate quotes just to quip on every sentence out of context. This behavior only arises when someone is in a debate they know they can't win. You're actively stalling and concealing the important arguments by making snarky little remarks whenever it seems remotely possible. Just makes you look dumb, since we're in a debate and not in an amateur standup contest.

If you accept that the study is correlational, then you should accept that as a criticism regarding its limitations. But you first tried to deny the criticism, in order to defend the study as decisive proof. This does not compute. You're just desperate at this point.

 

[extropy]

Funny cause it's true or what?

Dude i't funny cause it's not true! i thought this was how it worked - we highlight/quote a relevant point, then address it?

You make separate quotes just to quip on every sentence out of context. This behavior only arises when someone is in a debate they know they can't win. You're actively stalling and concealing the important arguments by making snarky little remarks whenever it seems remotely possible. Just makes you look dumb, since we're in a debate and not in an amateur standup contest.

If you accept that the study is correlational, then you should accept that as a criticism regarding its limitations. But you first tried to deny the criticism, in order to defend the study as decisive proof. This does not compute. You're just desperate at this point.

look i'll try this your way but it gets messy.

what point am i stalling on?

where did i deny the correlational nature of the study was a valid point? Birdup pointed that out in his first post and i accepted it and moved on...

where did i say the study was decisive proof?

this is getting ridiculous and i'm close to getting bored

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

Unless you're describing the Garden of Eden there was very limited fruit hundreds of thousands of years ago and early hominids certainly would have subsisted on plentiful protein by the coasts in the form of shellfish and highly nutritious seaweeds while closer Inland and in the fertile valleys they would have lived on all sorts of roots and berries and fruits but especially nuts and seeds and above all you're under estimating the quantity of insects and also animals died or killed by Predators that were driven off in other words early humans were doing a lot of Scavenging which would have continued through the development of Agriculture and animal husbandry

Obviously I'm not talking about The Garden of Eden, it's a fictional place! That would be like talking about how people used to eat in Narnia or Mordor xD

 

[Mjäll]

Dude i't funny cause it's not true! i thought this was how it worked - we highlight/quote a relevant point, then address it?


look i'll try this your way but it gets messy.

what point am i stalling on?

where did i deny the correlational nature of the study was a valid point? Birdup pointed that out in his first post and i accepted it and moved on...

where did i say the study was decisive proof?

this is getting ridiculous and i'm close to getting bored

You also highlighted and quoted super irrelevant "points" out of context. I can show you the examples if necessary. Or you could just go back and read your own posts. It's evident to all external observers anyway.

~

You were using the study to prove that veganism is the healthier diet, or at least equal to omnivore diet. I criticized it, pointing out that the study is merely correlational. You tried to dismiss my criticism, saying that i was just ignoring the data. You didn't use the word "decisive" but c'mon, is this gonna be your point now? I'm just factually describing your line of reasoning and turn of arguments in slightly different terms.

Good on you for accepting and moving on when someone else made the same argument. That's not how it went in our exchange though, which of course is what i'm commenting. This seems to be getting very difficult for you to handle.

 

[Mjäll]

It's really weird ending up in these pseudo-debates where someone is resorting to an attempt at lying about who said what in what order, in a permanent text format where anyone can easily go back and check who said what in what order. Just seems like such a hopeless endeavour...

 

[extropy]

You also highlighted and quoted super irrelevant "points" out of context. I can show you the examples if necessary. Or you could just go back and read your own posts. It's evident to all external observers anyway.

that's rather ironic coming from you.

~You were using the study to prove that veganism is the healthier diet, or at least equal to omnivore diet. I criticized it, pointing out that the study is merely correlational. You tried to dismiss my criticism, saying that i'm just dismissing the science. You didn't use the word "decisive" but c'mon, is this gonna be your point now? I'm just factually describing your line of reasoning and turn of arguments in slightly different terms.

Good on you for accepting and moving on when someone else made the same argument. That's not how it went in our exchange though, which of course is what i'm commenting. This seems to be getting very difficult for you to handle.

i didn't use the study to 'prove' veganism is the healthier diet....i didn't use the words 'decisive' or 'proof', so i'm not following you....

can we get back to basics....

why do you feel you have the right to kill an animal when you don't need to?

 

[extropy]

It's really weird ending up in these pseudo-debates where someone is resorting to an attempt at lying about who said what in what order, in a permanent text format where anyone can easily go back and check who said what in what order. Just seems like such a hopeless endeavour...

c'mon then, bro, lay it out....for all to see. lay out my contradiction. don't tell them they have to do the work - you make a point - you back it up. i mean, this is something you continually fail to do so i'm not holding my breath.

 

[Mjäll]

that's rather ironic coming from you.

i didn't use the study to 'prove' veganism is the healthier diet....i didn't use the words 'decisive' or 'proof', so i'm not following you....

can we get back to basics....

why do you feel you have the right to kill an animal when you don't need to?

You were using the study as a reference to support veganism as a healthy diet.

So this is really gonna be your point? You're gonna pretend that throwing out a source to support your ideas and then dismissing valid criticism as "ignoring the data" has nothing to do with the concept of using a source to prove something, and nothing to do with viewing some source as definitive proof (as opposed to a scientifically limited suggestion)?

 

[Mjäll]

c'mon then, bro, lay it out....for all to see. lay out my contradiction. don't tell them they have to do the work - you make a point - you back it up. i mean, this is something you continually fail to do so i'm not holding my breath.

It's in the very post just before that one.

Can you read?

 

[extropy]

You were using the study as a reference to support veganism as a healthy diet.

So this is really gonna be your point? You're gonna pretend that throwing out a source to support your ideas and then dismissing valid criticism as "ignoring the data" has nothing to do with the concept of using a source to prove something, and nothing to do with viewing some source as definitive?

do you disagree with the conclusion of the study?

 

[Mjäll]

do you disagree with the conclusion of the study?

Again, you're not responding to the point.

 

[extropy]

Again, you're not responding to the point.

and you're not responding to mine, blah de blah de blah, around we go