Irrefutable Vegan Postulate

[PsYcHo]

Fellow carnists, hereby I present you with the ultimate postulate that cannot be contradicted in any way shape or form, that validates carnism in front of any fellow vegan human being. Discussion is very much welcome

"Any human society that considers itself irrevocably but wrongly, even the slightest dependent on the plant kingdom, will end up favoring plants over its own human interests, which will condemn it blindly and inevitably to its own self destruction"

Nicely put. As far as an irrefutable argument, there is no such thing. I could show you a lighter being lit. I could present you with papers describing how it works. Millions of people could testify as to how this little objects creates its flame. Yet there would still be those out there that say it's magic.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

As far as an irrefutable argument, there is no such thing.

This is not necessarily the case. Mathematical arguments and philosophical arguments can be irrefutable. I can prove that two lines are parallel, and unless I make mistakes in the proof, this statement is irrefutably true.

[PsYcHo]

As far as an irrefutable argument, there is no such thing.

This is not necessarily the case. Mathematical arguments and philosophical arguments can be irrefutable. I can prove that two lines are parallel, and unless I make mistakes in the proof, this statement is irrefutably true.

Let me rephrase. Despite having an argument that is irrefutable, getting people to see it as such is impossible. Using optical illusions as an example, you can prove that the two parallel lines are in fact equidistant from each other. There will still be people who will claim "still looks crooked to me".

[Jaywalker]

True, people won't necessarily be convinced by irrefutable arguments and vice versa, people are convinced by nonsense all the time. The religious are a prime example. Maybe we should use this as an argument if it reliably works.

vegan81vzla, why do you think it's sound? Your postulate (the first part of your argument) is demonstrably false and even if it was true, what follows is a non sequitur.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

There will still be people who will claim "still looks crooked to me".

I don't think refutation is the right word to describe this. Denial might be more accurate?

[brimstoneSalad]

There will still be people who will claim "still looks crooked to me".

I don't think refutation is the right word to describe this. Denial might be more accurate?

Correct. Many things, which are logically sound, are irrefutable (the postulate in the OP is not), but nothing is really undeniable, because a determined moron can deny anything if he sets his mind to it.

[vegan81vzla]

Fellow carnists, hereby I present you with the ultimate postulate that cannot be contradicted in any way shape or form, that validates carnism in front of any fellow vegan human being. Discussion is very much welcome

"Any human society that considers itself irrevocably but wrongly, even the slightest dependent on the plant kingdom, will end up favoring plants over its own human interests, which will condemn it blindly and inevitably to its own self destruction"

But we do. Humans do not thrive in desserts, no matter what. Plants give us oxigen. Animals give us nothing, despite our continuous believe that they do. We humans should stop looking for them to solve our needs, but realize that we DO depend on the plant kingdom, thus sustaining it, not the animal one. There are 70billion farm animals, 10 times more than humans, because we seek to depend on them. By trying to sustain them, by sustaining that parasitic relationship, we are destroying everything, even ourselves, like the postulate states.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

But we do. Humans do not thrive in desserts, no matter what.

Why is this in any way relevant?

Plants give us oxigen

I don't think plants aren't useful. Do you think I want to start a plant genocide or something?

Animals give us nothing, despite our continuous believe that they do.

Assuming by us you mean citizens of the first world, you are correct.

We humans should stop looking for them to solve our needs, but realize that we DO depend on the plant kingdom, thus sustaining it, not the animal one.

Agreed. Animal agriculture (in its current scale) is environmentally unsustainable.

There are 70billion farm animals, 10 times more than humans, because we seek to depend on them.

Yes. In its current state, animal agriculture is not sustainable. I completely agree with you in this respect.

By trying to sustain them, by sustaining that parasitic relationship, we are destroying everything, even ourselves, like the postulate states.

This is what I disagree with. The Roman Empire didn't fall because Romans depended on animals for food. Dynasty after dynasty did not crumble because the Chinese depended on animals. The Great Depression of the United States of Ameria was not a result of dependence on animals. Using animals as a scape goat for any problems within humanity is simply unsubstantiated and absurd.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

It's hard to prove this, because no vegan society exists or have ever existed

[vegan81vzla]

But we do. Humans do not thrive in desserts, no matter what.

Why is this in any way relevant?

animal agriculture is the mayor culprit for earth dessertification

Plants give us oxigen

I don't think plants aren't useful. Do you think I want to start a plant genocide or something?

well, it is implied in your postulate when trying to mock mine. We do depend on the forests, plants, trees. When you portulate that we don't, that means we shouldn't care too much about that

Animals give us nothing, despite our continuous believe that they do.

Assuming by us you mean citizens of the first world, you are correct.

I imply every one. We shouldn't take anything from animals, nor epect anything from them. We should expect everything from ourselves.

By trying to sustain them, by sustaining that parasitic relationship, we are destroying everything, even ourselves, like the postulate states.

This is what I disagree with. The Roman Empire didn't fall because Romans depended on animals for food. Dynasty after dynasty did not crumble because the Chinese depended on animals. The Great Depression of the United States of Ameria was not a result of dependence on animals. Using animals as a scape goat for any problems within humanity is simply unsubstantiated and absurd.

But that's the thing, we don't know... historians might have all been carnists, and wouldn't care to notice the damage it produced to their societies, thus, bypassing any comment regarding food, or meat consumption and on why their societies failed.