Pilgrim

Sorry but I don’t see what you’re talking about. I explained in detail how you fail to respond to the core argument. Now you try to be a clown and I don’t have time for that. I thought there is a chance that you’d respond to the logic that you call flawed, but I see you won’t do that.

It’s hard to admit that you’re wrong, I know that, but it’s better than refusing to listen to the arguments per se and to not learn anything (therefore continue to be stupid)

If you choose the latter, do so, but don’t go on my nerves with these infantile responses. Don’t bother answering, you’re blocked

And?

Well I asked ChatGPT if that is true. It’s so cool that ChatGPT isn’t allowed to tell me how stupid that question is

Well, I made it simple for you and you still totally fail at responding to the point. So you just want to talk about limitations as if the reasons behind it are not relevant? By that logic, why do you limit yourself on eating pets? Why do you limit yourself on eating humans? I assume that the reason of why you don’t eat them are relevant? So why don’t you read once again which reason was giving for the circumstance that vegans don’t consume animal prodcuts

If you fail to adress how the reason behind it is illogical, then I fear you’re not educated enough in terms of discussion and in terms of the topic that is discussed here.

One last time: The reason why vegans stop consuming any animal products and why they don’t support any other kind of animal exploitation is that it’s not necessary, and if you’re against animal abuse, then you should ask yourself why you still pay for it.

As I mentioned before, the whole vegan argument is about logic. I fear that your problem is not that you just can’t understand logic, it’s that you’re ignorant. You showed that very clearly by now

Religions do that. You cannot eat pork/beef etc, depending on the religion. Vegans also do that and it is equally moronic.

It would be hard to make a conclusion that is even more dumb than what you just said. Again, the reason of why vegans refuse to pay for any animal products is because they can easily buy alternatives which don’t involve the exploitation and killing of animals. It’s therefore not necessary to pay for animals to be harmed and killed. If there is no necessity for an animal to be harmed and killed, then paying for exactly that is in fact immoral.

You don’t care about your own immoral actions, which is what many people do, but what makes you extraordinary “special” is how you try to make vegan look bad by preaching that their logic is flawed - while the reason that you state in regard to that are without any logic. The irony.

The sad part is that, people like you are the ones that then claim vegans are bad people while all you do is to spread nonsense about them and leave toxic responses where you fail to discuss the main arguments in a constructive manner.

My question was how it’s illogical to you and your answer is “it’s completely illogical”?

Like, how hard is it to write down a simple sentence in which you explain why it’s illogical!?

I can do you a favour and already unfold it: The vegan argument is that unnecessary harm towards animals should be avoided when it’s “possible and practical”, like when you live in a modern society, you don’t need to buy leather clothes or eat meat, there is no necessity to do so because of the incredible amount of alternatives, where no animal needs to be killed nor harmed.

To say thats illogical therefore means that you see no logic in avoiding unnecessary harm towards animals. So please, just start your response like this:

“I don’t see how it’s logical that we should avoid unnecessary harm towards animals, because…”

Funny how you talk about them like they’re bigots when you’re the one preaching so hard against them lol

Theres just one thing quite obvious in this thread:

You love to state your opinion, even though you spread nonsense by that. And you also like to talk shit about other people when someone presents you facts that you don’t like

Viva la free speech I guess

No, it’s obviously not. I recommend informing yourself.

“impose their beliefs”

It seems like you confuse it with religion. It’s not about beliefs, it’s about whether or not we find certain actions in our society to be morally wrong. Either you can justify your actions morally or you can’t. For example: “Beating women is fine”. Can it be justified morally? No. Can you prove through logic that it’s wrong? Yes, easily, by simply pointing out that trivial reasons like personal pleasure aren’t justification to bring suffering upon other individuals. If you’d, however, insist on beating women, how would you call that?

Nice example of how not to communicate. But what has this to do with what we’re talking about?

No. It seems like you don’t know what veganism is. It’s a philosophical stance and therefore completely different to any religion. It’s based n logical arguments. If you don’t like the suffering of animals and when they’re harmed without any necessity, it’s very likely that your core moral beliefs are the same as of any vegan.

It is logical. That’s why nobody can argue with the logic of the core arguments.

I’m curious. how is it illogical for you?

There’s always a person who can’t just take the joke

Vegans bad, we get it. How dare they to live according to their moral beliefs

Anybody would do that?

I think you don’t understand the definition then. When herbivores happen to eat some animals, like when cows eat baby chickens, it doesn’t make them carnivores just for doing so. They’re still herbivores

Don’t confuse that with veganism though

Well, and then there is an interview in regard to animal rights, where it seems that he has no clue what he is taking about.

I like him as long as he speaks about astro physics. But sometimes, when he goes into a field that he doesn’t know very well…

And why a tattoo? Is this for real?

And many different human ethical systems exist. If you believe that eating animals is always unethical, that is your ethic. If that means you believe I am unethical, then that viewpoint is valid within your system of ethics.

Sorry, but that is just a very poor try of avoiding the argument. What you say here is basically true, because if I move to other countries, I can do bad things that are under their umbrella of “local ethics”. Like moving somewhere east where women are still seen as property and where I can abuse them.

Does that mean that we cannot challange “local ethics”? No. You can challange any ethical standpoint. And you should.

But you avoid the core argument by stating empty phrases like the one above :/

the only way to change a person’s ethics is to appeal to them by showing the commonalities between belief systems, then showing them the benefits of certain variations that you believe.

In this case I can simply use logic. Logic shows that there is no justification for the suffering and deaths of all these innocent animals as long as there is no necessity for that. Don’t believe me? Try to justificate it right now :)

Neither you nor I like animal suffering. The difference is, I’ve seen plenty of animals lead relaxed, happy lives, that end painlessly before the animal is turned into meat. I understand that the notion repulses you.

I grew up with many animals that all had to die. I saw how they died, with pain and without pain. But the difference is that, even though I was tought that this “is OK”, I challanged this belief system, which is quite easy. And the main difference between me and other people is that I accept if I’m wrong, I do admit that and, after this first step, I change things.

I saw that it’s wrong to just consume and not give a fuck about the environment. That’s why I’m changing a lot even though it’s highly uncomfortable at times.

I saw that it’s wrong to judge people. So I stopped that

I saw that it’s wrong to pay for animals to suffer and die, when there is no necessity to do so. That’s why I started a vegan lifestyle

You kind of explained your viewpoint, but you didn’t say anything constructive in regard to the arguments. So it’s nice that you try to explain your viewpoint, that’s something I really appriciate, but you should atleast try to state some arguments to the arguments that have been told. Right?

Thank you, I’ll find my way :)

How lol, Books are the only thing where I find it hard to … well, get a legal copy from cough

Downvoting this guy for stating this simple fact won’t change the fact.

It’s like throwing a middle finge at a person in a discussion where the other person tells you a simple truth that you just don’t like. You’d look like a fool. So why do it here? It’s infantil. Just go into a nice discussion

An omnivore is predisposed to eat anything. Absent synthetic food processing? Yes, an omnivore must eat both meat and plants.

No. That is just plain wrong. By the same logic, you are predisposed to rape when you have a penis. Saying that an omnivore must eat both (meat and plants) is unscientific. I gave you the hint that there is something like scientific consensus about this topic, but you still refuse to open your mind about this topic and look for some facts. That’s sad

But at the same time, most of the world doesn’t have the privilege to decide whether or not to eat only specific things

Why do you talk about the world now? Did I say everybody has to eat plant based? No. I just pointed out how it’s unethical to pay for innocent beings to suffer and die when the only reason you have is “I like meat, it tastes good” (while there are definitly thousand plant based dishes with the same taste experience available, easily)

It’s simply nature.

Appeal to nature fallacy

I don’t criticize your reasons for not eating meat.

You don’t criticize that I refuse to pay for innocent animals to suffer and die without any necessity? Why would you? Or do you state this, just so you can say “so don’t criticize my way”, because that would make no sense

But if you think your arguments are novel to me, you’re wrong. And if you think I eat meat only for flavor, you’re also wrong.

I don’t care about if they’re novel to you. You fail to explain how it’s justifyable to pay for animals to suffer and die. You want to claim there is a necessity? You fail to give one

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about you. I don’t care about you and your choices. However, you responded here saying “There’s nothing wrong with being omnivorous as long as you’re ethical about it.” which is simply absurd, so now we kind of have to go down this road.

We need to reduce the amount of animal protein we take in - not because of ethics, but because it’s unhealthy to overindulge.

So you can’t justify the suffering and death of these innocent animals, therefore you just pretend that there is no ethical conflict?

Reality is complicated. I don’t deal in absolutes.

Reality in regard to this isn’t complicated. Go and watch dominion, then come back and tell me the reason why those animals deserve that, even though there is no actual necessity for that

No, it’s really simple. There were no absolutes in this discussion.