Philosophical Vegan Forum

Then, seriously, why are you here?

"Why Do You Eat Animals?" Just answered the question.

Dudugs wrote:

Then, seriously, why are you here?

"Why Do You Eat Animals?" Just answered the question.

Yes, but you cannot seem to field any valid arguments - Just saying that one person won't change anything and that meat tastes nice isn't anything new and doesn't counter the other points made. There are thousands of vegans and the number is growing because single people have changed their lifestyle. They slowly add up and in total are reducing demand for meat and making a difference.

thebestofenergy wrote:

Dudugs wrote:1 person won't change anything. I won't stop eating tasty meat just to save some piggies. I'm an omnivore for god's sake.

Then, seriously, why are you here?

My guess:

He's an amoral hedonist, and nihilist. He doesn't care about ethics at all- the concept of morality doesn't register with him.
He only cares about what directly affects him- that is, himself, and to the extent it affects him, close friends and family (because his hormones have caused him to form annoying emotional attachments to them- although if one died and he didn't know about it, he wouldn't mind at all; he just doesn't want to be exposed to anything that will make him suffer).

He'd eat dogs, cats, and even human meat if it were convenient and tasted good (if he wouldn't, then he's a hypocrite).
He doesn't care about people dying in Africa, and wouldn't spare a dime to save a life. He doesn't care if his actions cause the suffering and death of others, as long as it doesn't inconvenience him.

He's lying when he uses "one person won't change anything" as a reason, because he doesn't care or want things to change. Even if him not eating meat would end all animal agriculture, and end starvation in Africa, he wouldn't do it. He enjoys the system as it is, and he has no interest in it changing, whether that change is small or universal.

A good person is concerned with not adding to the suffering in the world. He doesn't have any problem adding to suffering, because he doesn't care about suffering- unless it's his own suffering.
He's a bad person. But it's a free country, as they say, and it's every person's right to be as shitty a human being as is allowed by law.

I have friends who are bad people. From a more objective perspective, they exploit anything and everything within arm's reach that will give them an iota of pleasure, are indifferent to human and non-human animal suffering, and are really only interested in enjoying the most immediate gratification they can get, at whatever cost to others, before they die a meaningless death at the end of a meaningless, selfish life.

Why is he here? Why is he anywhere? To please himself. That's the only reason he does anything. It's the only reason he lives from day to day- that, and being to cowardly to kill himself when the chips are down (which is why most nihilists keep breathing when they're having a rough time).
He has no purpose or meaning in life.

It's a pitiable position. And it's sub-human, because he rejects every existential quality of moral value that makes human beings unique (but that won't stop him from fellating himself over the absurd idea that he's somehow superior to all other animals despite rejecting everything that's uniquely valuable about humanity).
But, while it's the most sleazy position imaginable, it's his position to hold, if he chooses- and his to rationalize, his to live with, and his to savor on his death bed as he looks back on his life and realizes he's done nothing of value more than the animals he holds in callous disregard -- nothing beyond eating, sleeping, and f*cking (in one way or another).

It's not worth talking to people like that, because they value nothing, and because they stand for nothing, no amount of reason will convince them to change their behavior- they'll just change their beliefs instead. The best you'll get is them proudly admitting to being amoral hedonists who put themselves above everything else, and couldn't care less about the suffering of others. It's an emotional and intellectual dead-end.

Short of an Ebenezer Scrooge experience, these people don't change. And they all end up the same way.

It's better to focus your effort on people who truly care about something, anything, in this world aside from themselves.

But, I could be wrong. If he does genuinely care about anything beyond himself, I'd be very interested in hearing what that is.

He's an amoral hedonist, and nihilist. He doesn't care about ethics at all- the concept of morality doesn't register with him.[truncated]

So much ad hominen. I care. I care about sick and starving people. I have morals. I care about people suffering and I have helped people many times, even if it was incovenient for me. This truly offends me. Just because I don't hold animals in such a high standard as you doesn't mean I am a heartless monster. If I stopped eating meat would end all animal agriculture and starvation, of course I fucking would. I would even stop eating if I could improve peoples lives so much. I have changed my behaviours many times when I realized I was doing something wrong. I'm not selfish and I try to make other people as happy as I can. Whenever I feel like I offended or made someone sad, I will do anything to fix my mistake. I don't put myself above everything. I put my family and friends above me and if they do something nice to me, I try to pay back the best way I can. I want things to change. I hate humanity so much for being such a shitty selfish species. I have an objective in life other than eating, sleeping and fucking. I don't live to pleasure myself, because I would have killed myself a long time ago. Now look at yourself. Just because I don't hold animals in such a high regard as you, you insulted me like that. I have been insulted before, but not so much as you insulted me here. I'm not mad at you, I'm just deeply offended and amazed on how a human being took so much time of his life to insult another.

Best regards on your efforts to save animals

-Dudugs

Dudugs wrote: So much ad hominen.

Hi Dudugs, I didn't think you'd reply, but I'm glad to address your concerns.

I was just trying to explain the apparent situation to Energy. I've know many nihilists, and have friends who are, and your arguments so far fit the bill. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... you know.

Simply describing your likely philosophical and and psychological state is not an ad hominem fallacy (if that's what you were trying to say).

Ad hominem, as a fallacy, only applies to using criticism of the source of an argument against an argument itself. Also, when the whole argument is "I'm a good person" then ad hominem is entirely valid as an argument.

That said, I'm glad you think you care- or you want to care- identifying as a moral person, or with the desire to be moral, is the first step to becoming a moral person.

Dudugs wrote: I care. I care about sick and starving people. I have morals.

Not caring about something when you can't see it IS not caring.

Do I need to quote what you said?
You said when you don't see it, it doesn't bother you.

In other words, you only care when it personally affects you- when you have to see it, because it makes you uncomfortable.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

We care about things that aren't happening right in front of us- because we ACTUALLY care. You only care about things when you see them, because it makes YOU feel bad.

This is the essence of nihilistic selfishness.

You don't even really love your own mother, do you?

If she was abducted, and replaced with somebody who looks the same, as long as you didn't know it happened and didn't find out, you would be perfectly happy with that. It wouldn't matter to you if she was tortured and raped constantly- as long as you didn't have to know about it, or see it.

Am I wrong here?

See, for us, it does matter. We go out of our ways to FIND OUT what the effects of our actions are. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to AVOID knowing.

Yours is an elective ignorance, because you don't actually care about anything beyond yourself. You only care about the discomfort it makes YOU feel when you have to witness it.

If that weren't true, you wouldn't have said half of the things you said about animals in the past few posts.

No, animals are not as intelligent as humans. But they still suffer, whether you see it, or know about it, or not. And you don't care about that.

Dudugs wrote: This truly offends me. Just because I don't hold animals in such a high standard as you doesn't mean I am a heartless monster.

Good, you should be. I'm offended by you too. Your past behavior- the choice to be ignorant- is offensive, and it is only indicative of a person who doesn't genuinely care about anything beyond himself.

But you can change that now, today. You can stop blocking out your empathy when it's inconvenient. You can stop actively working to avoid knowledge of non-human animal and human animal suffering.

You can engage in your reason, and your compassion, and actually answer the arguments these fine ladies and gentlemen before me have presented. You can watch the videos that have been suggested.

There are many things you could do it you want to care.

Dudugs wrote:If I stopped eating meat would end all animal agriculture and starvation, of course I fucking would. I would even stop eating if I could improve peoples lives so much.

1. I don't believe you.

2. If you stop eating meat, it WILL end all animal agriculture and starvation- that is, your contribution to it.
If everybody does their own part, the world will be a better place.
If everybody thinks like you, and refuses to do their own part because everybody else didn't already do it, nothing will ever change.

Dudugs wrote:I have changed my behaviours many times when I realized I was doing something wrong.

Really?

Well then do it now.

Other posters have already presented compelling arguments. You irrationally dismissed them with profound ignorance of economics, with your selfish assertion that as long as you don't see it then it doesn't matter, and finally with an appeal to apathy- that you don't care.

If you do care, revise your position.

Dudugs wrote:I'm not selfish and I try to make other people as happy as I can. Whenever I feel like I offended or made someone sad, I will do anything to fix my mistake. I don't put myself above everything.

Words words words. You can congratulate yourself on how great you are all day. Words don't impress us, actions do. Prove it by being the decent human being you claim to be.

Dudugs wrote:I put my family and friends above me and if they do something nice to me, I try to pay back the best way I can.

That's not selfless. You only regard them as having moral value because you're hormonally obliged to them- thanks oxytocin. You pay them back because of social standards, which have to do with game theory. These things are evolutionarily programmed into human psychology. You don't get credit for that. Any number of non-human species of social animals do the same thing. It's just biology.

A decent human being treats those he or she isn't related to well. A decent, moral, human being treats those who do nothing for him or her with compassion, despite getting nothing in return.

Dudugs wrote:I want things to change. I hate humanity so much for being such a shitty selfish species.

That's great. If that's true, then BE the change you want to see in the world. If nobody changes, then nothing will change. Right now you're a perfect example of the kind of indifferent, electively ignorant, person who makes our species so shitty and selfish. Don't be that person- it's in your power to choose not to be.

You aren't responsible for other people's behavior, you're only responsible for your own behavior. If you can't even do the right thing yourself, how do you expect anybody else to?

Dudugs wrote:I have an objective in life other than eating, sleeping and fucking. I don't live to pleasure myself, because I would have killed myself a long time ago.

So you say. If that's true, then prove it.

Do you understand how horrible you've been the past few posts? Do you have any idea what a monster you've presented yourself as?

Sure, you've been polite enough, but completely irrational and amoral. Do I need to quote the things you've said?

Dudugs wrote:Now look at yourself. Just because I don't hold animals in such a high regard as you, you insulted me like that. I have been insulted before, but not so much as you insulted me here.

I spoke the truth as I see it. I spoke the truth of you as you've presented yourself so far.

And while I didn't think you'd read it, I think I said what you needed to read.

If you're a decent human being, then act like it. I'll eat my own words. You can shove them down my mouth and say "take that, you were wrong about me!".

Dudugs wrote:I'm not mad at you, I'm just deeply offended and amazed on how a human being took so much time of his life to insult another.

My intent was not to insult you. My intent was to explain you.

If I was wrong, then prove me wrong.

That said, I'm glad you think you care- or you want to care- identifying as a moral person, or with the desire to be moral, is the first step to becoming a moral person.

I am a moral person.

Not caring about something when you can't see it IS not caring.

Do I need to quote what you said?
You said when you don't see it, it doesn't bother you.

In other words, you only care when it personally affects you- when you have to see it, because it makes you uncomfortable.

No, I care. The difference is when I don't see, I think it's really bad and feel bad for those people, but my mood doesn't change. When I see it I need to hold my crying.

We care about things that aren't happening right in front of us- because we ACTUALLY care. You only care about things when you see them, because it makes YOU feel bad.

Again, I care, but when I see images, I get emotionally affected.

You don't even really love your own mother, do you?

If she was abducted, and replaced with somebody who looks the same, as long as you didn't know it happened and didn't find out, you would be perfectly happy with that. It wouldn't matter to you if she was tortured and raped constantly- as long as you didn't have to know about it, or see it.

Am I wrong here?

Hooooly shit... Did you even dare to question my love for my mother? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? OF COURSE I LOVE MY FUCKING MOTHER WHAT KIND OF HEARTLESS MONSTER DO YOU THINK I AM. Yes, you are wrong. Also "as long as you didn't know it happened and didn't find out", well if I didn't know I wouldn't be able to be sad, because I though everything was okay. If I found out though, I would do everything I could to save her.

See, for us, it does matter. We go out of our ways to FIND OUT what the effects of our actions are. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to AVOID knowing.

Yours is an elective ignorance, because you don't actually care about anything beyond yourself. You only care about the discomfort it makes YOU feel when you have to witness it.

If that weren't true, you wouldn't have said half of the things you said about animals in the past few posts.

No I don't. I care about other people. If something bad happens to someone, even if I don't see it, I will care. I hope that person is okay. That person didn't deserve to get hurt and I wish the best to everyone, except assholes.

No, animals are not as intelligent as humans. But they still suffer, whether you see it, or know about it, or not. And you don't care about that.

I don't care about animals because they are animals. You will probably go apeshit about this, but too me, animals don't really matter. I don't feel the same way about animals than I do about people. Doesn't mean I am a heartless monster that doesn't love his own mother.

Good, you should be. I'm offended by you too. Your past behavior- the choice to be ignorant- is offensive, and it is only indicative of a person who doesn't genuinely care about anything beyond himself.

But you can change that now, today. You can stop blocking out your empathy when it's inconvenient. You can stop actively working to avoid knowledge of non-human animal and human animal suffering.

You can engage in your reason, and your compassion, and actually answer the arguments these fine ladies and gentlemen before me have presented. You can watch the videos that have been suggested.

There are many things you could do it you want to care.

I care about people. I don't care about animals and I will never do. Bad luck for them, they are less evolved, life is unfair.

1. I don't believe you.

2. If you stop eating meat, it WILL end all animal agriculture and starvation- that is, your contribution to it.
If everybody does their own part, the world will be a better place.
If everybody thinks like you, and refuses to do their own part because everybody else didn't already do it, nothing will ever change.

But everyone won't do their part for it. And enlighten me how not eating meat will stop starvation.

Really?

Well then do it now.
Other posters have already presented compelling arguments. You irrationally dismissed them with profound ignorance of economics, with your selfish assertion that as long as you don't see it then it doesn't matter, and finally with an appeal to apathy- that you don't care.

Eating meat isn't wrong. It's how the world works. Some analogies I used may have made me look like a heartless monster that as long as he doesn't see it, it doesn't matter. Well, in all honestly, I could have phrased myself better, but it matters to me, even if I don't see it.

Words words words. You can congratulate yourself on how great you are all day. Words don't impress us, actions do. Prove it by being the decent human being you claim to be.

Where did I congralute myself? I never said "im so gr8 coose i help people". And how do you expect me to impress you with actions when we are in a forum. All I can do is words.

That's not selfless. You only regard them as having moral value because you're hormonally obliged to them- thanks oxytocin. You pay them back because of social standards, which have to do with game theory. These things are evolutionarily programmed into human psychology. You don't get credit for that. Any number of non-human species of social animals do the same thing. It's just biology.

A decent human being treats those he or she isn't related to well. A decent, moral, human being treats those who do nothing for him or her with compassion, despite getting nothing in return.

And where did I say that I don't do that? I talked about family and friends because you talked about family and friends. I treat everyone with compassion, except bad people who don't deserve.

That's great. If that's true, then BE the change you want to see in the world. If nobody changes, then nothing will change. Right now you're a perfect example of the kind of indifferent, electively ignorant, person who makes our species so shitty and selfish. Don't be that person- it's in your power to choose not to be.

You aren't responsible for other people's behavior, you're only responsible for your own behavior. If you can't even do the right thing yourself, how do you expect anybody else to?

I do the right thing. But just because not eating meat is the right thing for you, doesn't mean it is the right thing for me.

So you say. If that's true, then prove it.

Do you understand how horrible you've been the past few posts? Do you have any idea what a monster you've presented yourself as?

Sure, you've been polite enough, but completely irrational and amoral. Do I need to quote the things you've said?

I want to become a programmer for Valve, the company who the videogames which made me happy in the hardest time. I went to dedicate and put my effort into something which I know will make people happy, like it did with me.

I spoke the truth as I see it. I spoke the truth of you as you've presented yourself so far.

And while I didn't think you'd read it, I think I said what you needed to read.

If you're a decent human being, then act like it. I'll eat my own words. You can shove them down my mouth and say "take that, you were wrong about me!".

I act like one. You never saw me in real life, you can't judge me for actions you never saw. That's kinda of being and hypocrite.

My intent was not to insult you. My intent was to explain you.

If I was wrong, then prove me wrong.

Then you gotta learn how to explain things to people without offending them and putting them down.

Dudugs wrote:I don't care about animals because they are animals. You will probably go apeshit about this, but too me, animals don't really matter. I don't feel the same way about animals than I do about people. Doesn't mean I am a heartless monster that doesn't love his own mother.

No one said you have to feel as attached to non-human animals as much as to humans.
So you don't care about animals, yet you yourself said that if you would see animals suffering and being killed it would impress you?

Dudugs wrote:That's kinda of being and hypocrite.

Oh, the irony.

Dudugs wrote: I am a moral person.

No, you have convinced yourself that you are a moral person, through ignorance and rationalization.
There is a difference between believing and being.

Jihadist suicide bombers think that they are moral people too. Do you think believing something makes it so?

You are not a moral person, because you are delusional (in the same sense that violent Jihadist is, but on a different subject), and the effects of your actions are on the whole more harmful than helpful to others.

Dudugs wrote: No, I care. The difference is when I don't see, I think it's really bad and feel bad for those people, but my mood doesn't change. When I see it I need to hold my crying.

That's not what you said, and it's not how you're behaving.

Being as charitable as I can be, you said that because you can't see the suffering animals experience in their facial expressions, that you don't care that they're actually suffering.
You're using "out of sight, out of mind" as an excuse for indifference to the fact.

You also used the same argument in regards to not seeing something die.

Some lay Buddhists use the same argument- if they didn't witness the death, or hear the death, somehow their hands are magically clean.
This is superstitious nonsense, based on emotionally intuitive thought ("well, I don't feel bad, therefore it's not bad"), and not a shred logic or rationality.

You had better know that they're suffering- that's basic biology. Or are you one of those atheists who denies science when it's convenient?

Morality is not based on your personal feelings. Just because you don't like somebody, or something, doesn't make it moral to harm them. That's called selfish hedonism.

You only care about the things you want to care about, because it makes you feel good. It's self-interested, plain and simple. Caring about things that you DON'T want to care about is morality.

Do you really think all vegans feel bad when we see animals suffering and dying?
Do you think we bawl our eyes out, and that's why we're vegan?

Because if you do, you have another think coming.

Some of us are very sensitive, and have gone vegan because we just care a lot about animals.

Many of us, particularly the most formidable debaters you will encounter, are vegan NOT because we innately care about animals, but because we are uncompromisingly logical, and we simply realize that it is irrational to disregard the suffering of animals while valuing still the suffering of humans.
Many of us are vegans, not because we cry when we see animals die, but because we don't want to be raging delusional hypocrites.

I care about morality, and I care about consistency. I care about not being a hypocrite, and that when I criticize people for hurting other human beings that I'm not doing something just as bad as they are from another perspective.

You apparently care about none of those things.

Dudugs wrote: Again, I care, but when I see images, I get emotionally affected.

You used the lack of emotional effect upon you by animals to justify not caring about their suffering.

You lack an emotional effect from people starving in other countries, therefore -- following your bad reasoning -- you should not care about it.

If you do care about it, you are being inconsistent.

If you care about humans, despite being unable to see them, and despite not being strongly emotionally affected, then you can't use your lack of emotional effect from animals as an excuse for not caring about them in a moral sense.


I don't care if you cry or not when you see a puppy hit by a car. Some of us are not very emotional. The only thing that matters is whether you're behind the wheel or not when it happens. Currently, you ARE behind that wheel.

Dudugs wrote: Hooooly shit... Did you even dare to question my love for my mother? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? OF COURSE I LOVE MY FUCKING MOTHER WHAT KIND OF HEARTLESS MONSTER DO YOU THINK I AM.

I think you're the kind of heartless monster who only cares about things that make him personally feel bad, and chooses to close his eyes to suffering, despite being the cause of it, when he doesn't want to be inconvenienced by compassion.

The greatest person is one who does the right things despite not being blackmailed into it by fuzzy emotional tendencies. That's where real choice comes from.

You're not special. I can turn off my feelings too, when something is out of sight. Moreover, I can block out things in sight.

I can kill animals with my own hands, which you're probably too much of a crybaby to do, and I can choose not to care. But you know what? I don't do that. Why? Because I care about being a good person.

Every day, I make the CHOICE to care instead of not caring.

I'm not quite the bleeding heart you make us all out to be- and many vegans aren't.

Many of us here, in particular, are vegan because we have used reason to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that it is morally inconsistent to eat meat and pretend to care about other things.

Dudugs wrote: Yes, you are wrong. Also "as long as you didn't know it happened and didn't find out", well if I didn't know I wouldn't be able to be sad, because I though everything was okay. If I found out though, I would do everything I could to save her.

You wouldn't want to find out. You'd deny it. You'd avoid it.

If somebody tried to reason with you, and tell you, you'd make up excuses. You'd avoid knowing. You'd put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala".

You don't go out of your way to gain moral insight. You want to stay happy and self satisfied. You don't want to think about the nasty things in the world.

You're the image of moral complacency.

You think you're a moral person, and that's too sad to even be funny.
You could be a moral person, if you'd open your eyes, and use your reason to understand what should have been self evident.

Dudugs wrote: That person didn't deserve to get hurt and I wish the best to everyone, except assholes.

See there? Where I underlined. Basically, you only care about people you like. People you don't like: you exclude them from your circle of compassion.

A hundred years ago, that would have been "except negros". Today, it's "except assholes" and "except animals".

You pick and choose what to care about based on your own personal whim. You only do it because it makes YOU feel good, or because it makes YOU feel bad.

How is that anything but selfish?

Dudugs wrote: I don't care about animals because they are animals.

Woah... you just blew my mind dude. Animals are animals?

No shit.

You know what? Humans are animals too.

Dudugs wrote: You will probably go apeshit about this, but too me, animals don't really matter. I don't feel the same way about animals than I do about people.

Do you find anything wrong with this statement?

Dudugs 100 years ago wrote: You will probably go apeshit about this, but too me, negroes don't really matter. I don't feel the same way about negroes than I do about white folk.

If you're OK with people who believe that, then you might not be a hypocrite. You're a moral relativist. You think anybody's opinion of morality is equally valid to any other.

According to you, it's just fine for anybody, based on whim and personal prejudice, to include or exclude anybody and anything from moral consideration- and you would never judge anybody for not caring if humans die, or if just black people die, or if just red-heads die, or just _______ die.

If you have any problem with that, then you're a hypocrite, because you're doing the same thing. You're arbitrarily disregarding the moral value of a class of being based on your personal whim.

Non-human animals are a little different from human animals. There are many types. Most are less intelligent than most humans. Some non-human animals are more intelligent than some humans- but most of them are less intelligent. Some of them are weaker, some are stronger. Some are smaller, some are bigger.

Now, if you want to say that moral value is based on intelligence, and because non-human animals aren't as intelligent as we are, they're less important, then we can have a conversation about that.
That is a much more rational conversation.

Dudugs wrote: Doesn't mean I am a heartless monster that doesn't love his own mother.

Doesn't it? I beg to differ. I think you just love yourself, and you have an emotional attachment to your mother that makes you not want to know about her suffering. Based on your responses so far, I don't think you actually love or care about her- you just don't want to experience personal suffering from knowing about her suffering (due to the hormones in your brain).

Maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.

Dudugs wrote: I care about people. I don't care about animals and I will never do. Bad luck for them, they are less evolved, life is unfair.

Dudugs 100 years ago wrote: I care about white people. I don't care about negroes and I will never do. Bad luck for them, they are less evolved, life is unfair.

1. You just admitted to being incredibly closed minded.

2. You clearly understand nothing about evolution. Organisms are not "more" or "less" evolved. Other species are not our ancestors, but our cousins. We come from common ancestors. Did you learn everything you think you know about evolution from the Super Mario Brothers movie?

3. Life is unfair. That's why the concept of morality exists- which by its very nature MUST be fair. A moral person strives to go against the grain of injustice in life, not to use natural injustice as an excuse to maintain the status quo. You are not a moral person, and based on what you've written here, you don't even want to be a moral person.

Dudugs wrote: But everyone won't do their part for it.

Maybe not. But what other people do or don't do is not your moral responsibility.

You are only responsible for YOUR actions. You only have to do YOUR part.

If you do your part, you're a moral person. If you don't, then you're one of the rest of the writhing masses of our selfish species, destroying the world for your own pleasure.

Do or do not do your own part- but don't use the excuse that some other people aren't doing it to justify your bad actions.

As another poster said, correctly, the world will never be free of rape either- so because other people are raping, does that make it OK for us to join in, since we can never stop them?

Dudugs wrote: And enlighten me how not eating meat will stop starvation.

You don't care.

Why should I explain something to you when you're denying basic science, have shown that you are incapable of understanding basic economics, and have no intent to behave morally unless the entire world does it first?

Dudugs wrote: Eating meat isn't wrong. It's how the world works.

Appeal to Nature Fallacy.

Click that link, it will explain what you're doing there.

How the world is, is not how it should be.

People used to say slavery wasn't wrong, it's how the world worked.
People used to say owning women wasn't wrong, it's how the world worked.

Every generation has its own issues to work out. Stubborn, closed minded, irrational conservatives like you, who point at how the world IS and use that as an illogical argument for how it should stay are the biggest obstacle to social and moral progress.

Dudugs wrote: Some analogies I used may have made me look like a heartless monster that as long as he doesn't see it, it doesn't matter. Well, in all honestly, I could have phrased myself better, but it matters to me, even if I don't see it.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. I've explained how you don't care about others- you only care about how things make you feel. That's not morality, that's just emo-selfishness.

Dudugs wrote: Where did I congralute myself? I never said "im so gr8 coose i help people". And how do you expect me to impress you with actions when we are in a forum. All I can do is words.

You're extolling your great moral virtues, claiming to be a good person, praising yourself for being so evolved, going so far as to play god of the universe by equating your own personal whims with morality. I could go on.

Your arrogance is derived from your ignorance, and you don't even see it.

You can start by learning a bit about logic, and evolutionary biology. By action, I mean change. Stop being so ignorant and irrational. Other posters have addressed your logical fallacies, and you have ignored them.

Your indifference, and failure to respond to their questions, is currently the only behavior you're displaying.

Start by answering when people ask you questions, and correcting yourself when you're so blatantly wrong.

Dudugs wrote: I treat everyone with compassion, except bad people who don't deserve.

And except everybody who isn't human. And a hundred years ago, it would have been "everybody who isn't white" too.

That's the problem. You only treat people with compassion when YOU want to treat them with compassion.
You act on WHIM, not morality.
When a person only does things they want to do, because it makes them feel good, we call that selfish. You're a perfect example of that.

Dudugs wrote: I do the right thing. But just because not eating meat is the right thing for you, doesn't mean it is the right thing for me.

Oh, so morality is based entirely on opinion. Just because suicide bombing isn't the right thing for you, doesn't mean it's not the right thing for other people?

How about if somebody kills you? What if that's the right thing for them? You shouldn't judge them for that, right? Because everybody's opinion of what's right and wrong is equally valid, according to you.


Learn to use logic.
Seriously, your arguments are painfully bad. This is like preschool level philosophy.
Do you ever stop to think about what you're saying, even for a second?


Either it is, or it is not, moral to eat meat.

You have presented no valid arguments in favor of the morality of meat eating.
Other posters here have presented ample argumentation against it.

No intelligent and educated people today believe eating meat is a good thing.

There are intelligent and educated people who eat meat- like, for example, Richard Dawkins- but they all feel bad about it, and they readily admit that it's the wrong thing to do, and that they're not as moral a person for doing it.

Have a little bit of intellectual honesty.

Dudugs wrote: I want to become a programmer for Valve, the company who the videogames which made me happy in the hardest time. I went to dedicate and put my effort into something which I know will make people happy, like it did with me.

Nice rationalization. Really weak. No, you like video games. Making them will give you pleasure. So that's what you want to do.

There is nothing legitimately selfless in that. That's personal whim.

Now, if you wanted to make a video game to educate people, to change the world- maybe there's some element of selflessness in there. But in order to do that, you'd have to first have some moral standards to uphold that you could express through the game.

Dudugs wrote: I act like one. You never saw me in real life, you can't judge me for actions you never saw.

No, no you don't. Morality means doing more good in the world than harm. And you almost certainly don't do that.

At the very best, you might be NICE. But NICE is not the same as MORAL.

A person can be perfectly nice, but deeply evil at the same time.
Likewise, a person can be a little rough around the edges, but deeply moral.

Moral > Nice.

Dudugs wrote: That's kinda of being and hypocrite.

Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.

Dudugs wrote: Then you gotta learn how to explain things to people without offending them and putting them down.

You misread me. I was not explaining TO you. I was explaining you to another user.

My earlier post was not addressed to you. I was explaining to another user what was wrong with you.
Explaining you.

And I am still yet to be corrected in my initial analysis.

You're welcome to prove me wrong at any time.

Humane Hominid wrote:If your symptoms are real, and you haven't sought professional help, then you have a fool for a patient. You're probably not smarter than a doctor with relevant expertise, and it really looks to me like you are more invested in using your symptoms and self-daignosis as a convenient ideological shibboleth than you are in finding out what's wrong with you.

Go see a doctor before it gets worse.

You can speculate all you want, but either you're forgetting that I said I REALLY wanted to be vegan during my initial trials, or you're just looking for an excuse not to face the reality that is me... I am trying, still, to figure out what's the deal with me, but I'd prefer to exhaust all other options before going to a doctor. That doesn't make me smarter than anyone... I'd prefer to go in and tell a doctor that I've done the leg work of many things before he can waste my and other people's resources just to tell me to do those things. If more people thought like me, the price of medical care (and insurance as a result) wouldn't be so absurd in America.

Also, it's not getting worse, it's just a recognition of how my body responds to foods. I just want to know why, to expand my options.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Can you start a thread about it? I feel like that might be a bit too far off topic here. It could be an interesting discussion

I have now: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=15&t=175

If any of the moral stuff should be moved to a separate thread, let me know

But I've been doing some thinking and I'm gonna have to retract my earlier concession about your phylogenetic order assumptions. We can't assume like that because no one can ever prove sentience doesn't exist in a particular being (can't prove a negative in general). Such an outlook is not self-correcting.... Luckily you've already proved to me that cows and chickens are sentient enough to warrant moral respect lol.