Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism

Technical problems, questions, comments, and suggestions for the forum.

User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism

Post by EquALLity » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:24 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:48 am
Welcome back from the dead!

Can you sign up to the Wiki? Somebody will authorize you to edit.
EquALLity wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:57 pm
I think it's good. Maybe you could give some examples for pro-vegan pseudoscience,
Good idea!

EquALLity wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:57 pm
"Milk has a ton of puss and blood."
"Eggs are chicken periods."
I'd call those more gross-out arguments, since they're kind of subjective and mainly made to be disgusting. What's a ton? Etc. and shouldn't matter.
EquALLity wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:57 pm
Also, I have noticed that many vegans will immediately believe something that supports veganism without fact-checking it. Maybe you could say something about that too, since it's a big cause of why there is so much pseudoscience in the vegan community.
Yes, we see the same in religious circles with respect to Einstein quotes, etc.
EquALLity wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:57 pm
P.S. A general question, what is the POV of the wiki? Sometimes it is in first person, but sometimes it isn't. I think it should be consistent.
First person stuff is probably a mistake.
If you see it, feel free to fix that.
Thanks, but unfortunately I don't really have time right now to be an editor of the wiki, given school etc.. :/ I just stumbled on this topic, checked out that page, and thought of an improvement to that section based on the large amount of pseudoscience I've noticed vegans propagate. Good luck though, I think it's a good idea to try to improve vegan activism.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8220
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:56 pm

Thanks. I've updated the article.
It may be useful to separate the description of each item from examples, but that can be done later.

Margaret Hayek
Junior Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:45 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism

Post by Margaret Hayek » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:43 pm

Hi Brimstone Salad,

I'm very sorry for the very long delay in response.

Let me just start fresh, with some questions to you:

(1) I don't see a sharp distinction between 'reason' and 'intuition', at least if 'intuition' can include the uninferred ethical seemings that we have after critical reflection, not just the unexamined ones that we have at the outset of ethical inquiry. In basic ethics (i.e. trying to figure out what is most fundamentally right / wrong; good / bad; a reason to act / not a reason to act) 'reason' just is the attempt to see what uninferred ethical seemings of all levels of generality - i.e. 'intuitions' in my sense - seem most clearly to be true after maximal critical reflection upon them, how they can fit together, their entailments of all varieties, what rival sets of ideas there might be and how plausible they are after maximal critical reflection, etc.. I take it that you see 'reason' as something different, and that you think that it can do something else in basic ethics. Can you thus tell me what you mean by 'reason', how you think it works in basic ethics, and how you take it to be independent from and not operating on / clarifying / uncovering intuitions and their contents in the service of producing more reflectively informed intuitions?

(2) I don't see how explaining the problems for rival ethical theories like deontology vs. consequentialism is in any way not just a matter of trying to show that one of the views doesn't comport with our strongest intuitions after maximal critical reflection. I have referred you to the arguments I know of and how they all work in the manner I have describe. Can you tell me how you think one can argue e.g. against deontology in a different way, and / or refer me to arguments that you think do that?

I think will be most helpful to centre on methodology rather than the metaphysics and philosophy of language of ethical facts and talk. I do think that I explained clearly what is going on with the non-naturalism of people like Sidgwick & Singer in terms of their thinking that ethically relevant properties are naturalistic but that the facts that these properties are ethically relevant are not naturalistic facts. Also when it comes to various metaethical views you have claimed very forcefully and with a lot of strong language that you think that they are awful, but it seems to me that you have not provided any arguments for these claims, you have not referred me to any arguments in support of these claims, and, quite frankly, you have not shown any understanding of these views or issues. I suspect that it is not fruitful for me or anyone else to try to engage with you about these matters at this point. I do, however, think that methodology is very important, and I would very much like to learn from you about what you take the alternatives here to be.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest