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.
Volenta wrote:Why does it matter to people whether Hilter was a vegetarian or not? I don't care and would never even argue about his vegetarianism. It's such a big fallacy (Guilt by Association) to use it as an excuse for eating meat, I won't even take it seriously. They're just exposing their stupidity and lack of debating skills.
That's why I cringe when people say this.
The sad thing is that I saw interviews to vegans (particularly a couple to Gary Yourofsky) where the interviewer was pointing that out.
I had no words.
For evil to prevail, good people must stand aside and do nothing.
Volenta wrote:Why does it matter to people whether Hilter was a vegetarian or not?
Because people are idiots, and it's not what is actually right that influences people's decisions, but what they erroneously believe to be right.
You can tell people what kind of fallacy something is, but that doesn't make them stop believing it's a good argument.
It's such a big fallacy (Guilt by Association) to use it as an excuse for eating meat, I won't even take it seriously.
And yet thousands of people seem to think it's a good reason- that's the problem.
The same with all of the other absurd reasons people give. No matter how idiotic, they still wield financial power they use to harm animals- so it's a serious matter because of that.
The only time I don't take something seriously is when I don't consider it a serious threat to the lives and well being of others. Nothing is a serious threat to the logical validity and soundness of our positions- but these irrational arguments are serious threats to sentient beings because irrational people take them to heart.
We've actually had a member of the forums that just used "I lovebacon" for all of these discussions. So just a quick warning (not as a moderator but as a member of the forums) we usually tend to consider people who use this argument as unable to make cogent conversation.
Volenta wrote:Why does it matter to people whether Hilter was a vegetarian or not?
Because people are idiots, and it's not what is actually right that influences people's decisions, but what they erroneously believe to be right.
You can tell people what kind of fallacy something is, but that doesn't make them stop believing it's a good argument.
It's such a big fallacy (Guilt by Association) to use it as an excuse for eating meat, I won't even take it seriously.
And yet thousands of people seem to think it's a good reason- that's the problem.
The same with all of the other absurd reasons people give. No matter how idiotic, they still wield financial power they use to harm animals- so it's a serious matter because of that.
The only time I don't take something seriously is when I don't consider it a serious threat to the lives and well being of others. Nothing is a serious threat to the logical validity and soundness of our positions- but these irrational arguments are serious threats to sentient beings because irrational people take them to heart.
I have to disagree. I actually think it makes more sense to point out why their argument is bad by making some analogies or something, then going with them into an irrational discussion. It eventually is rationality that has to make them 'see the light,' otherwise they will just come up will something else to justify their actions.
thebestofenergy wrote:
Yes, he forgot to put the selfishness argument.
Mostly because it's never used in debates. And for a valid reason.
I've seen it used, but only by nihilists.
People who reject the notion of morality entirely don't understand how there's any point in "giving up life's pleasures", no matter what the consequences to others.
I've known people to freely admit that they would eat cats, dogs, and even humans if it was cheap, delicious, and legal (they didn't want to risk going to jail) or they could be certain that they wouldn't be caught.
I don't like them, because I think they're verging on psychopaths, but in a way I can kind of respect the honesty. They're less hypocritical than meat eaters who cringe at eating cats/dogs/humans.
Volenta wrote:
I have to disagree. I actually think it makes more sense to point out why their argument is bad by making some analogies or something
Oh, yes, I always do that too, of course.
I would say something like:
Hitler spoke German, and he loved his pet dog. Is German an evil language? Are dog lovers evil?
Hitler breathed air. Is breathing air evil?
Whether Hitler was even a vegetarian is not very clear (propaganda in Germany advertised him as a saint- claiming he was vegetarian was part of that, but there are reports that he not only cheated, but basically receive meat and rendered animal testicle injections from his physician)
But it doesn't matter, because arguing that Hitler did something, and therefore it is bad, is not a valid argument.
You would have to show a causal link.
Vegetarianism didn't cause any of the bad positions that the Nazis had.
Most of the Nazis ate meat, and Hitler didn't change that. He didn't even fire his chef for putting animal fat and broth in his food. Vegetarianism wasn't an important part of the Nazi campaign in any respect, and wasn't particularly important to Hitler himself.
It wasn't in any respect his inspiration for the holocaust.
Incidentally, Hitler was also a Catholic, and a large part of the Nazi Campaign was about antisemitism; purging society of the Jews who "murdered Jesus" and whatnot, but also Romani, and Homosexuals (who are condemned in the Bible).
He did a lot of what he did because of his religious views, and he was enabled in coming to power by the Pope at the time, a likely anti-semite, through treaties with the Vatican.
That's how a causal relationship works.
The argument "Hitler was a Catholic, was buddies with the Pope, was enabled to come to power by the church, was never excommunicated in life, and according to Catholic doctrine he should be in heaven now- therefore Catholicism is evil" may have some merit.
That he strangely had compassion for some animals (particularly his dog, but he was also disturbed by vivisection), is only evidence in favor of the notion that 'nobody is 100% evil'. And the fact that vivisection is so terrible it even morally disturbed Hitler is probably the most meaningful take away.
I like to give well rounded rebuttals when I can. Do you think I left anything out?
Hitler spoke German, and he loved his pet dog. Is German an evil language? Are dog lovers evil?
Hitler breathed air. Is breathing air evil?
Whether Hitler was even a vegetarian is not very clear (propaganda in Germany advertised him as a saint- claiming he was vegetarian was part of that, but there are reports that he not only cheated, but basically receive meat and rendered animal testicle injections from his physician)
But it doesn't matter, because arguing that Hitler did something, and therefore it is bad, is not a valid argument.
You would have to show a causal link.
Vegetarianism didn't cause any of the bad positions that the Nazis had.
Most of the Nazis ate meat, and Hitler didn't change that. He didn't even fire his chef for putting animal fat and broth in his food. Vegetarianism wasn't an important part of the Nazi campaign in any respect, and wasn't particularly important to Hitler himself.
It wasn't in any respect his inspiration for the holocaust.
Incidentally, Hitler was also a Catholic, and a large part of the Nazi Campaign was about antisemitism; purging society of the Jews who "murdered Jesus" and whatnot, but also Romani, and Homosexuals (who are condemned in the Bible).
He did a lot of what he did because of his religious views, and he was enabled in coming to power by the Pope at the time, a likely anti-semite, through treaties with the Vatican.
That's how a causal relationship works.
The argument "Hitler was a Catholic, was buddies with the Pope, was enabled to come to power by the church, was never excommunicated in life, and according to Catholic doctrine he should be in heaven now- therefore Catholicism is evil" may have some merit.
That he strangely had compassion for some animals (particularly his dog, but he was also disturbed by vivisection), is only evidence in favor of the notion that 'nobody is 100% evil'. And the fact that vivisection is so terrible it even morally disturbed Hitler is probably the most meaningful take away.
I like to give well rounded rebuttals when I can. Do you think I left anything out?
They could actually point out that speaking German and breathing air wasn't part of his decisions, while vegetarianism was ( so it wouldn't be a fair comparison).
However, that wouldn't happen, because those people, who support the theory that veg*ns made the wrong choice because Hitler was one, are... I think the correct word here is stupid.
For evil to prevail, good people must stand aside and do nothing.
thebestofenergy wrote:
They could actually point out that speaking German and breathing air wasn't part of his decisions, while vegetarianism was
That's exactly what I argued against in that post.
That's like the last 3/4 of the post, countering that claim. The first few lines were just providing an example of the fallacy of claiming something is wrong only because Hitler did it.
I went on to explain that to make a claim like that, demonstrating (or at least arguing) a causal relationship is necessary.
