Working with meat.

[PsYcHo]

It is stated in the definition that we promote animal-free productos FOR the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. I am a vegan for humans. A socialist/humanist vegan if you please, that regards that, as for the animals sake, as long as we are all vegans, and we stay away from them, they will be just fine, they do not need us, we do not need them.

I must say your rationale confuses me. Your primary argument seems to be you are vegan for the benefit of humans and the environment. While I have learned many things from the vegans on this forum, enough that I have substantially reduced my intake of animal products, the ethical argument seems to hold no sway with you. Interesting..

I enjoy playing the devil's advocate. You seem angry, but intelligent. I suggest starting a new thread. Something along the lines of "Humanist Veganism is more rational than Ethical Veganism because......"

Whatta ya say?

[brimstoneSalad]

I never said animals weren't intelligent, nor that they didn't feel.

You said they didn't have a concept of life/plan for the future or in essence any real will to live; that it's OK to kill them.

I say that, animals will never put human needs over their own

That's false. A dog will often risk its life or die to protect its owner or human family.
Even dolphins, not knowing the humans present, will go out of their way to attack sharks that threaten them, and occasionally bring them to shore.

There are compassionate and good humans who care about others (even other species), and there are indifferent and selfish humans (like you're making yourself out to be) -- likewise, there are compassionate and good non-humans, and indifferent and selfish ones ones.

so why sould we?

Because it's the right thing to do. If you help somebody ONLY because you expect that person to help you in return, you are behaving selfishly, not ethically. You're sounding more and more like a Randroid.

a "domesticated" animals very well might kill or attack another human, adult or child, even without them being a real threat, and even when the animal is regarded by the owner as very well "domesticated"

Not usually. Overwhelmingly, they do not, and have very good impulse control and sense of right and wrong. Humans are larger threats to each other, even when very well domesticated.
A human might just snap and murder half of the people in his or her office or school one day. How is this different?

quite irrelevant, we are in the present, not in the past.

Quite relevant. Our genetics are the same, we're just a bit better domesticated by social conditioning today. Social evolution, which you spit on by denying the value of ethics.

Humans, we might have a chance in a vegan and more just world, to fix our problems without violence.

That's nonsense. Just more utopia dogma without evidence.

Animals, no matter how domesticated, will always go back to it. Even sex is violent for them. That's why we are different

Non-human animals won't have to go back to it if they come with us. It seems like you just really hate non-human animals. Did a dog bite you once or something?

We aren't so different, we're just another kind of social animal. We get emotional, angry, violent, but also love and cooperate like any other.
Humans rape all of the time. And many non-human animals don't by choice. There are also many species of bird where rape is even biologically impossible.

they are laughable because no one else hear them, not me.

I have found the ethical argument the most successful argument.

Your argument ( https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =22&t=1795 ) is beyond absurd, and based on some bizarre fatalistic dogma.
Have you actually convinced people to go stop eating meat with this bizarre non sequitur prophecy?

I am already vegan, so who cares what I think.

I care, because when you spout lunacy like that, you make veganism look bad, and irrational, and put people off going vegan. It sounds like some crazy Illuminati conspiracy theory stuff. If people think that's what veganism is, they won't ever consider it.

Everyone else (other carnists) care less about animal sentience

You are right about that. They care less about animal sentience than their own survival. But your nonsense apocalyptic prophecies aren't going to sway them.

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

Really? That's your argument?

We can argue from health. That's valid. But seeing how many people still smoke, it's going to be a hard road. And it won't convince them to go vegan (they'll still hunt and wear fur).

We can argue from the environment. That's a good point -- we must stop global warming as it's bound to lead to catastrophe. But why should people in the first world care? Most likely just a couple billion or so poor people will die because of it. Rich Westerners will just turn up their ACs and let the closed borders and national guard do their jobs -- prices will increase a bit, but our lives will not be in very great danger if we are prepared.

Poor people in third world countries wouldn't help us at their expense, so why should we care about what happens to them?
Just double military spending again and call it a day, right?

That is, if we follow your ethically devoid reasoning to not help others unless they can help you in return.

You ONLY convince people to really go vegan based on ethics.

let me get this straight, someone posts asking for answers on a topic, and the only answer that is allowed is a reassuring one? you do realize that to the question "is owning cats vegan?" allows only for a yes/no answer. And both are just opinions. Mine, and I stand by it, will always be NO.

You can tell people they aren't vegan, but as happened, don't be surprised if somebody points out (correctly) that you are wrong, and that you aren't even really a vegan anyway.

Don't complain about me calling you not a vegan when you've just done the same to everybody who owns a cat.

It is the current vegan propaganda that is very dogmatic and that rejects all forms of arguements.

Quite the contrary, consequentialist ethics are very open to arguments and evidence. It's deontological veganism that rejects arguments.

You need to read that thread.

Just because it comes from the current vegan approved dogma, does not mean it is correct.

There isn't one single approved dogma; consequentialism and deontology are at odds now. Consequentialism is winning, since consequentialists are smarter, but it's a slow battle since the deontologists are very loud, and deontology (like any dogma) spreads fast (and crudely) since it's an easy thing to understand -- rather than thinking, you just have to obey mindless rules. People want to believe that's what veganism is.

no. because ethics only works for human-human relations. Humans either understand or can be taught basic ethics, we recognize among ourselves.

Clearly you do not understand them. The latter remains to be seen.

Ethics is not about only helping somebody if he or she can help you. That's Randian Objectivist nonsense, a horrible immoral pseudo-philosophy that insults what ethics really are. We help others because it's the right thing to do, not because it benefits us.
That doesn't mean sacrificing ourselves, but if you can do it without greatly harming yourself, you should strive to help others even if they likely won't return the favor.

That applies to human beings too. When is the last time a poor person helped you?

And you're wrong; Animals do understand basic empathy. There's extensive experimentation into altruism in non-humans, which is the basis of primitive moral behavior.

Actually, "happy meat", "grass fed meat" "human farms" are a consequence to vegans asking for "animal rights" or better treatment for animals from humans.

No, they're consequences of YOUR nonsense, that it's OK to kill animals, since according to you they don't plan for the future or care about life (you're wrong). You've given these people permission and excuse to do it.

The only thing they've disagreed with you on is the transparently absurd notion that animals should not be used or owned because... doom!

and in a utopian vegan world, we would just either have to let those animals die, or just kill them ourselves, right?

People will transition slowly, and stop breeding these animals. By the time everybody is vegan, or enough so laws can be passed, there will be a small enough number that they can be released into sanctuaries to live out their lives.

[vegan81vzla]

You seem angry, but intelligent. I suggest starting a new thread. Something along the lines of "Humanist Veganism is more rational than Ethical Veganism because......"

I don't understand why you keep saying that I am an angry person, when I consider myself a nery calm and down to earth person. Is it just because I care less about animals and I am not afraid to say so? Humanist veganism is more rational than the so called "ethical" veganism because if you really want for humans to stop using animals, you have to give arguments that benefit humans. Humanist veganism is more rational, because it deals with a very well possible consequence of a whole vegan human world, the ending of many animals we support ourselves with, and that the "ethical" arguments don't just cut it.

[PsYcHo]

I don't understand why you keep saying that I am an angry person, when I consider myself a nery calm and down to earth person. Is it just because I care less about animals and I am not afraid to say so? Humanist veganism is more rational than the so called "ethical" veganism because if you really want for humans to stop using animals, you have to give arguments that benefit humans. Humanist veganism is more rational, because it deals with a very well possible consequence of a whole vegan human world, the ending of many animals we support ourselves with, and that the "ethical" arguments don't just cut it.

I suppose it confuses me that your arguments, while rational (subjectively), are devoid of emotion. It would seem to me that if you only approach things in rational manner, debating is a silly exercise. I hold rationale highly, but to be lacking in any emotion seems to be counter-intuitive to debates. (This should go without saying, but all my thoughts are IMO) If your argument holds no emotional reasoning, then why bother? Rationally, it would make more sense to avoid debating a subject at all, as your opinion is deduced to be the most rational.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

^
Why do you think vegan81vzla beliefs here are rational? Maybe a matter of being polite? The moral system he is advocating for seems to be arbitrary (moral patients defined as humans) and based on false information (animals don't have real interests + the postulate he proposed).

[PsYcHo]

^
Why do you think vegan81vzla beliefs here are rational? Maybe a matter of being polite? The moral system he is advocating for seems to be arbitrary (moral patients defined as humans) and based on false information (animals don't have real interests + the postulate he proposed).

Rationality and morality two different things. His belief that humans will do what is in their best interest is a rational position, however the same exact argument is used for carnist. Such as the argument to eat herbivores because they compete for our food supply. A bad argument, but rational.

If you see a bus full of children flip over on the interstate, the argument could be made it is rational do nothing. They are not your children. You stand to gain nothing, and there are professional whose job it is to help others. You could injure yourself trying to help them. So from a self-interest standpoint it is rational to do nothing. Morally, that's a horrible choice.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

^
Morality is logcial and rational.
Would you agree that mathematics as a whole is objectively true? Morality works similarly. Both are axiomatic systems known to be true (objectively) due to their logcial consistency.

Vegan81vzla's system's draws Objectivist elements from an unsubstantiated postulate through a non-sequitur. The system is therefore illogical.

[brimstoneSalad]

Rational behavior depends on the goal in mind. Rational behavior advances one's goals.

That could be morality (if your goal was to be a moral person, or that is implicitly if you see yourself as a moral person or want to be one)
That could also be complete depravity, or immorality (if your goal is to be as evil as possible and harm others as much as you can in this life)

There may be no way to rationally compel somebody to choose one over the other. Only once somebody chooses can you then talk about what the rational behavior to advance that goal is.

Vegan81vzla assumes humans have their own selfish interests in mind, but that's not necessarily true if you look at the predominance of religion and nationalism. Humans are very much culturally and ideologically driven.
Humans are also stupid and short sighted, and may prefer a cookie today at the cost of their own lives in the abstract future. That is, humans do not generally behave rationally to the ends of this supposed self interest (whatever that means, what even is the 'self'?), so Vegan81vzla's premise is just incorrect.

[PsYcHo]

^
Morality is logcial and rational.

But who is to determine what is moral?

A psychopath is more likely to run into a fully flame engulfed building than a "normal" person to save a child. Is he saving the child because it is the right thing to do? More likely, because he doesn't recognize fear emotions, and considers the possible upside .(people will think highly of me. This will allow me to gain trusts that I can use to my ends)

Did he do the morally correct thing? The child still lived.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

But who is to determine what is moral?

A consistent system.

Did he do the morally correct thing? The child still lived.

No, he didn't. His intentions and understanding of the usual consequences are what is relevant.

If I went on a school shooting with the intent of killing everyone I saw and had an understanding of the consequences of my actions, but missed all shots but one which killed a teacher who had been raping and murdering students, my actions would not be moral.

If I gave antibiotics to a kid with the intent of treating his disease and with an understanding of the consequences of my actions, but the child exhibited a rare reaction to the medicine that ended up killing him, my actions would not be immoral.

Both of these examples are based off of stolen examples from brimstoneSalad...