Probably going to get a dog soon

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:57 am It would be nice to have a Cambridge declaration of consciousness style consensus on vegan diets for dogs, but not necessary. The consensus is apparent in professionally written articles on the topic.
The consensus is not apparent at all, you'll hear a variety of opinions. Also the "Cambridge declaration" isn't a statement of consensus either, just a statement of agreement from a particular conference.

You love to talk about "consensus" but its not very meaningfully scientifically and scientists rarely go around trying to make their consensus clear. The only time that tends to happen is when dealing with issues with clear political implications, for example, we've seen attempts by scientists to show a "consensus" on climate change.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:57 am Your recommendations for yet more studies isn't something that will help convince most people.
There is a lack of good studies on the topic which will become quickly apparent to anybody that looks into the topic. So in this case having more research would be important to convincing people. Nobody is going to be convinced by the claims of vegans.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:57 am It's a good analogy; people who object to vegan diets for dogs are primarily doing it on a quasi-religious appeal to nature foundation. That needs to be undermined before they'll consider any veterinary opinion.
People have various objections and an "appeal to nature" has nothing to do with religion. Just because a line of reasoning can be fallacious in some context doesn't mean its "qausi-religious" thinking.

And people will hear various things from vets, many vets have a negative view of vegan diets for dogs. Heck, many doctors have a negative view of vegan diets for people as well. You've yet to show there is a consensus about vets, to do this you'd have to do a survey of a large random sample of vets.
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 am And they will likely continue to do so no matter how much research there is. And they will also do so whether there are just a couple vegans doing it or millions.
The strategy would be far less effective if there was good research demonstrating that its wrong....but there isn't and the anti-vegans have no trouble finding vets and other professionals that are critical of vegan diets for dogs.

Overall its a good strategy for them and they use it frequently.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:49 am I don't understand how you don't see that the morality or healthiness of giving a dog meat has nothing to do with whether or not a vegan is morally compelled to give a dog meat. Again, even if eating meat gave your dog superpowers and the happiest life of all possible, a vegan would not be morally compelled to give meat to a dog, because again, he has an alternative that is morally acceptable (not getting a dog). This has nothing to do with veganism.
Right, as I said, an individual can force a dichotomy by refusing to consider other alternatives but this would have nothing to do with the moral issue as a whole. So if someone, regardless of reason, has already decided that they will only have a vegan dog then they can evaluate the question of whether they should adopt or not get the dog. But this choice isn't in a vacuum, there is a reason why they are excluding an available option and you'd need to explore how that reason impacts the other options.

You really are just creating a false dichotomy that ignores the underlying issues.
esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:49 am It's a very real dichotomy because I bound myself to it and I did so morally. The fact that there are other possible scenarios is irrelevant to whether or not I can bind myself morally to this dichotomy. It's like saying that when I say "I will either have a banana or a plumb for dessert", that is a false dichotomy because there are also grapes in the fridge.
Its a real dichotomy for you but not for the moral issue as a whole. This is the problem with what you're doing, the dichotomy in this case has moral relevance and you need to explore how the reasoning for the dichotomy impacts the other options. What you have for dessert doesn't involve any underlying moral issues. This would be like someone saying "I'll either hunt meat or buy it at the grocery store" and reasoning about only those two options and then proclaiming that hunting is the moral option. That may be true from their individual restriction and values, but it says nothing about the underlying issue of whether eating meat is justified in the first place.
esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:49 am So again, it is the right of the vegan to PUT the dog in this dichotomy.
So then is it also the right of a non-vegan to put an animal in the position of either being hunted or raised on a farm?

esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:49 am "Either we stay at home or we go to the park". But wait, going to Dysneyland would be much better than those two! You are being immoral!
Again a false analogy with no moral significance. How about either we kill the pig or cow today. But wait, you could kill the carrot instead. You're being immoral. That has a different ring....doesn't it?

esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:49 am About this, I think this could very well be a position to take, but that is precisely the point! This is an argument against the second part, not the first one! You cannot give a dog a vegan diet because that in itself is a moral evil. Therefore, you are forced to not getting a dog. But I think you can agree that this is a completely different topic, the healthiness of a vegan diet for a dog has absolutely nothing to do with it, so it is not what we were talking about.
Firstly my comment here is related to the first part, namely, you need to consider why someone has decided to create a dichotomy. You cannot just create a dichotomy and pretend it has moral significance which is the point of "the first one". And I disagree, the healthfulness of a vegan diet for a dog would be very relevant for this topic. If vegan diets promoted disease in dogs that would mean they cause more suffering for the dog which would have moral relevance to the issue. If you instead went with the "rights" approach you'd also have similar issues.

Your argument seems to be that the health of impact of a vegan diet for dogs isn't relevant because vegans are creating a dichotomy that excludes the option of giving a dog a non-vegan diet. But this says nothing about the underlying moral issues. It just means vegans already made up their mind about certain moral aspects of the topic.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by esquizofrenico »

carnap, we are not discussing: "Is it a moral duty to give your dog a vegan diet", but "Can you morally get a dog from a shelter on the condition you will only give him a vegan diet". I have not decided I will have a vegan dog, I have decided that I will either have no dog or a vegan dog. It's completely different. The reason why I am leaving out another option is irrelevant, you can argue that the vegan is being stupid for not considering other options, but not that he's immoral.

I am not creating a false dichotomy because I'm not saying: "You can either have no dog or have a vegan dog". I am saying: "I personally have the right to put myself into the decision of either having no dog or having a vegan dog". The only way I could not have that right is if both alternatives were moral evils; but with just one of them being morally acceptable, then I have the right to bind myself to that decision.

Of course what you have for dessert can have moral implications, it's one of the topics of vegan philosophy. So my analogy with fruits is completely valid. If either having a banana or a plumb is morally acceptable, I can morally bind myself to the dichotomy of having either one of them.

If I wanted to attack the dichotomy: "I'll either hunt meat or buy it at the grocery store", what I would do is say that both alternatives are moral evils, and therefore you cannot morally bind yourself to that dichotomy. However, just by proving that one of them is morally acceptable, you would not have to bother about the other or the multitude of alternatives to those two. Is what I have been telling you since the beginning, if you want to argue against my first point you need to say that not getting a dog is a moral evil.

I would argue that you cannot morally put an animal to the decision of being hunted or being raised in a farm, because both actions by you would be moral evils. You cannot morally force yourself to do EVIL OR EVIL. This is a binary logic topic. You can bind yourself to do MORAL OR EVIL or MORAL OR MORAL.

Again, you miss the point with the cow and the pig. Both of those are moral evils according to a vegan, so the vegan can argue that you cannot bind yourself to that dichotomy.

For what you write I really have the feeling that you think I am talking about the morality of vegan diets vs carnivorous for dogs. I am not and I've never been. That was not the topic you asked me about. You asked me if it is moral to have a dog under a vegan diet that will let him live for five years.

carnap, what I am saying is a tautology is we accept the axioms of binary logic. T.or.q is always truth independently of whether q is true or false. MORAL.or.q always gives you the possibility of being moral independently of what q is, so there is no problem if you force yourself to it, because you will always be able to act morally. That is what I am saying in the first part of my argument. Again, if you want to attack my position, you need to focus on the second part, say that I am not caring about the interests of the dog, since I am not offering him an alternative and accessible diet that will give him a better life. However, I have already given a counterargument to that point (in the child with a heart condition example).
Post Reply