Philosophical Vegan Forum

vegan81vzla wrote:animal agriculture is the mayor culprit for earth desertification

Gotcha, but proper infrastructure deserts are just as inhabitable by humans as any other place.

vegan81vzla wrote:When you postulate that we don't, that means we shouldn't care too much about that

My postulate was mainly a tongue in cheek attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of suggesting animals are the destruction of humans. As you may have noticed, I agree with quite a few of your premises, I just have qualms with your conclusion and reasoning.

vegan81vzla wrote:I imply every one.

You understand that people in extreme poverty cannot sate their nutritional needs in any practical way besides animal products, correct?

vegan81vzla wrote:We should expect everything from ourselves.

And plants.

vegan81vzla wrote:But that's the thing, we don't know...

Therefore, let's draw unsubstantiated conclusions that support our perspective.

vegan81vzla wrote: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.

And I'm sure you went through libraries of historical and archaeological records and found out that meat actually destroyed the Romans, right? Or maybe this collective body of dishonest historians burnt them and I just have to take your word for it?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

vegan81vzla wrote:animal agriculture is the mayor culprit for earth desertification

Gotcha, but proper infrastructure deserts are just as inhabitable by humans as any other place.

Duh, like I said before, humans do not thrive on deserts

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

vegan81vzla wrote:When you postulate that we don't, that means we shouldn't care too much about that

My postulate was mainly a tongue in cheek attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of suggesting animals are the destruction of humans. As you may have noticed, I agree with quite a few of your premises, I just have qualms with your conclusion and reasoning.

so my postulate IS irrefutable then, your's, "tongue in cheek" or not, clearly is

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

vegan81vzla wrote:I imply every one.

You understand that people in extreme poverty cannot sate their nutritional needs in any practical way besides animal products, correct?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

vegan81vzla wrote: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.

And I'm sure you went through libraries of historical and archaeological records and found out that meat actually destroyed the Romans, right? Or maybe this collective body of dishonest historians burnt them and I just have to take your word for it?

Like I said, historic records will never be 100% acqurate, nor be quite as honest on the reason why societies fail. One just has to see what is happening around the world today and see that it might be the same reason on why most societies failed in the past.

vegan81vzla wrote:Duh, like I said before, humans do not thrive on deserts

Humans without air conditioning and trade don't thrive in deserts.

vegan81vzla wrote:so my postulate IS irrefutable then

Your postulate is refutable and unsubstantiated.

vegan81vzla wrote:"tongue in cheek" or not, clearly is

As it was meant to be.

vegan81vzla wrote:Like I said, historic records will never be 100% acqurate, nor be quite as honest on the reason why societies fail.

Just because some historical data is sometimes inaccurate, that doesn't mean all historical data is inaccurate or that we now get to pick and choose what happened to support our claims.

vegan81vzla wrote:One just has to see what is happening around the world today and see that it might be the same reason on why most societies failed in the past.

We aren't seeing societies fall because of animal agriculture today, and even if we were, that wouldn't prove that the Romans fell because of animal agriculture.

By this same logic all previous unified Japanese societies that fell, fell because they were nuked twice by the United States, since that's what brought the (most recent) collapse of Imperial Japan. Historians don't tell us this though because they are mostly Americans or allies and want to hide the sins of the United States. Plus, we can't really be sure that any of our records of Japanese history are 100% true, so we just got to look at why a unified Japan fell most recently.

I guess that we would just have to agree to disagree... your arguments I have heard before, and has never pushed me away from my conviccions

vegan81vzla wrote:I guess that we would just have to agree to disagree... your arguments I have heard before, and has never pushed me away from my conviccions

Obviously, because your convictions are based on faith and not rational argument. Faith is very easily refuted to anybody but the faithful.
People who accept rational arguments don't have to "agree to disagree", because they will be persuaded by a sound argument.

If you can not rationally counter the argument, you have failed at your initial attempt at a "postulate". Your argument has been soundly refuted, and you have nothing to say on the matter.
"Agreeing to disagree" is what those who aren't intelligent enough to understand rational argument do. It's giving up. Good job on that.