Philosophical Vegan Forum

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:How do we determine the definition of words as a forum? Consensus, dictionary definition, and / or as defined by the coiner?

A combination thereof. There are sensible arguments to be had over the definition, she just didn't attempt to make one.

In the "a person who does not eat or use animal products." commonly available, "animal" most sensibly means non-human, since we use products of human labor every day (it's also the first definition that comes up for "animal", meaning not human or plant) .

Of course, superficial dictionary definitions of philosophical terms are rarely very useful (we find the same issues in the "dictionary" definition of atheism, saying until recently that atheists were in denial of god, or immoral people, etc.). Dictionary writers rarely understand or can keep up with things like this, and are better with words everybody uses.

Wikipedia or other Encyclopedias are more useful on that front, being more comprehensive.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I quoted the definition to her. She knows how it's defined, she just chooses to use her own definition that she made up so she can tell everybody else they're wrong based on this arbitrary special definition she has created. That's dishonest, and it's dogmatic (the nature of her special definition).

Maybe she just didn't see why the definition you sited was better than her own.

Or maybe she is being a little stubborn, but that's not something that we can't talk her out of.

brimstoneSalad wrote:IMO, it's fair to keep her banned until she apologizes and makes it clear that she understands why breast milk is vegan and will no longer claim that it isn't.

How is she supposed to apologize when she's banned?

brimstoneSalad wrote:That would make veganism wrong. And functionally impossible, because saliva would be non-vegan too. Not vegan to kiss. Not vegan to swallow (your own spit). And anything and everything you bought at the store would be non-vegan, because it's a product of human labor.

That's why I said 'generally wrong'.
It would technically be wrong in a way, but not in a way that would speak to the cause in general (ie with meat consumption).

EquALLity wrote: Maybe she just didn't see why the definition you sited was better than her own.

Or maybe she is being a little stubborn, but that's not something that we can't talk her out of.

Maybe, but the definition was from the vegan society, the coiners of the term, and the only philosophically rigorous one that's cited (pretty much anywhere).

EquALLity wrote:How is she supposed to apologize when she's banned?

Dizzy signed up for something around five or six accounts that got banned. It's not against the rules (if she reads them) to make a new account. Her IP was never banned.
She could make a new account to apologize.

EquALLity wrote:That's why I said 'generally wrong'.
It would technically be wrong in a way, but not in a way that would speak to the cause in general (ie with meat consumption).

I'm not sure what you mean.

brimstoneSalad wrote:A combination thereof. There are sensible arguments to be had over the definition, she just didn't attempt to make one.

That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

brimstoneSalad wrote:In the "a person who does not eat or use animal products." commonly available, "animal" most sensibly means non-human, since we use products of human labor every day (it's also the first definition that comes up for "animal", meaning not human or plant) .

Is it not permitted to use more obscure, but still accepted definitions? If Princess Peach had specified that by "animal", she meant "member of the animal kingdom" and acknowledged that her argument was only in reference to this definition, would that have been acceptable?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Is it not permitted to use more obscure, but still accepted definitions? If Princess Peach had specified that by "animal", she meant "member of the animal kingdom" and acknowledged that her argument was only in reference to this definition, would that have been acceptable?

What she was doing at best was cherry picking, and mixing and matching superficial/common definitions with more obscure or scientific ones, with the result of crafting something deceptive. We typically see diminishing complexity and obscurity of terms within definitions, not increasing complexity and obscurity (like a pyramid built upside down).
If you use a common dictionary definition, then you probably also need to also use the common dictionary definitions those definitions reference. If a vegan is simply somebody who doesn't consume or use animal products, then animal means something that's neither human nor plant. If vegan is defined more rigorously in terms of its coining or philosophical tradition (a short tradition though it may be), then "animal" , may be looked at as having a more rigorous definition (although even then it probably did not). It is generally not the other way around, where a trite definition is intentionally composed of words with more deep and obscure meaning.

There is effectively consensus that vegan human breast milk willingly given, particularly for a human child, is vegan. Anything that contradicts that is fighting an uphill battle from the start, and adopts the burden of proof to show why the consensus is wrong. Since there's also concordance with the coined definition, and with any more substantial discussions of veganism, there's no reason to think a one sentence definition from a dictionary interpreted creatively to stroke somebody's ego trumps all of that.

Apparently Vegan Sidekick identifies as an antinatalist. It's part of his self-description on his Facebook page.

Vegan Sidekick wrote:Egalitarian, atheist, antinatalist, feminist, pro LGBT, vegan

I noticed it for the first time today. He never promotes antinatalism in any of his comics, so I never imagined that he'd be one himself, nor that he'd publicize this.

I think that it might be unwise for vocal vegans to promote antinatalism alongside their vegan message, for reasons which have already been much discussed on this forum. I disagree with antinatalism on philosophical grounds, as well as its promotion by vegans (for pragmatic reasons). I won't go into much depth right now about why I'm opposed to antinatalism. Suffice it to say for now that I've read much of what brimstoneSalad has written against antinatalism, and have not yet seen anything about her perspective that I disagree with.

My question here, is about Vegan Sidekick (which is also relevant to any other antinatalist vegans I might come across). Should I confront him about this in any way, and if so, how?

Should I ask him why he identifies as such, listen to his perspective (if he replies), and then politely point out any flaws that I think there are in his arguments against human procreation? Maybe he's in support of vegans producing children, and raising them with consideration for animals and the environment? Instilling in these children the ability to positively influence their peers, and thus have a net positive effect on the world?

I don't know, maybe it's not worth my time and effort. I'm not sure how much of a problem this even is, and if so, how much of a positive effect I could have on it.

Lightningman_42 wrote:Apparently Vegan Sidekick identifies as an antinatalist. It's part of his self-description on his Facebook page.

Vegan Sidekick wrote:Egalitarian, atheist, antinatalist, feminist, pro LGBT, vegan

I'd say invite him here to discuss it.

Actually, I have already left a comment on his page saying how much I like his work and how much I wish he changed his mind on that topic. He has not replied yet ( this was 3/4 days ago). To be honest, I don't like the fact that he's using all the other labels either.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:46 am

Lightningman_42 wrote:Apparently Vegan Sidekick identifies as an antinatalist. It's part of his self-description on his Facebook page.

Vegan Sidekick wrote:Egalitarian, atheist, antinatalist, feminist, pro LGBT, vegan

I'd say invite him here to discuss it.

I think I should. I've been putting this off for too long. He expressed support of antinatalism in a recent post*, and I'm concerned that this might continue. I'm worried about the effect that him promoting antinatalism could have on his ability to effectively advocate veganism.

I think it would be good to leave a comment for him, inviting him to come onto the forum to discuss this topic. Is there anything else that I should do? If he declines a request to come onto the forum to discuss this topic, is it worth it trying to persuade him? Or would it better not to pursue the matter further?


*The post he made on May 7, 2017; at 1:13am. The second comment on the comic here is "Thats the antinatalist's argument." VS then responds to it.

Lightningman_42 wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2017 5:04 pm I think it would be good to leave a comment for him, inviting him to come onto the forum to discuss this topic. Is there anything else that I should do? If he declines a request to come onto the forum to discuss this topic, is it worth it trying to persuade him? Or would it better not to pursue the matter further?

If he won't discuss it, then just talking about it and criticizing him for the view is probably appropriate.

Lightningman_42 wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2017 5:04 pm *The post he made on May 7, 2017; at 1:13am. The second comment on the comic here is "Thats the antinatalist's argument." VS then responds to it.

What did he say?