Why Do You Eat Animals?

[Dudugs]

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.

Have you seen my in real life? No. You can't make someone's pshycological profile from a few forum posts.

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.

Ok, I say this again, I could have explained myself better. Please ignore my previous words because they don't correctly portray who I am. I care about stuff I don't want to care about. Sometime's I wish I could live with ignorance, because, well, ignorance is bliss. When I was kid and saw poor people in the street, I always wishe I could give them money, because my parents wouldn't give. It's just a coin and it brightens someone's day.

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.

With animals, yes, call me a hypocrite, give me your best shot. You won't change my opinion, to me they are just animals. But with people, I am not one. I have morals.

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.

You didn't read everything. I care about it when I don't see it. If I think about the starving people I wish I could do something and I wish they'll eventually get a good life. When I do see it, I literally cry. I feel sick. And again, I could have phrased myself better before. If I see a suffering animal I think "Jeez, poor guy." and I go back to doing what I was doing before, not thinking about it.

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.

I am not. You only saw a few badly phrased forum posts. I don't close my eyes to suffering. I do something when I see suffering, not close my eyes. I do stuff even when I'm not blackmailed by fuzzy tendencies. If I can help someone and improve their day, I will do it. And I can't turn off my feelings. I can pretend, but I can't. And I care about being a good person too. And when did I say vegans are bleeding hearts?

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.

No, I would want to know. I would ask and until I got solid proof to prove it, I wouldn't believe. When I got solid proof, I would believe and I would want to know more and to get my mother back. I don't only want to stay happy and self-satisfied. I said and I say again, I would have killed myself long ago if that were the case.

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?

Do you listen to yourself? What should I do, treat the people who make others lifes a living hell the same way I treat everyone else? No, I won't do that. Call me selfish, but those people don't deserve it. As my mother always said "Treat people the way they treat others. r48817net

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.

P-fucking-lease. Don't come with more humans to animals comparisons. Humans are animals? Yes they are. You are completely right. But you don't seem to understand that. Till now you talked about yourself as 100% rational moral person. You have done nothing but insult me and congralute yourself on being such a good person. Do you know what makes a good person? Someone who can admit that ,like everyone else, is a very shitty creature. I can point out my flaws, but what about you? The moment I said animals weren't so important to me, what did you do? You took time of your life to make up a phsycological profile insulting me, saying I don't love my own mother and saying that you are the perfect example of a good person. But deep down you know you are shitty. But you can't deal with that and to feel better about yourself you insult me. Am I wrong? See, I can also invent a phsycological profile of someone with the express purpose of insulting them. Don't pretend you're better than you actually are.

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.

I fucking give up. You can question whatever you like, but not my love for my mother.

[brimstoneSalad]

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

Thanks! That should be an interesting discussion.

can't prove a negative in general

"You can't prove a negative" is just false.

In Science you can't empirically prove anything to 100% certainty, so you could just as well say that nobody can prove a positive either. Unless you disregards science as useless due to this lack of absolute knowledge (as many theists do), you can't use it against one assertion while allowing it for another.

What you can do, is provide evidence for a negative. Any scientist will tell you this, as well as can basic reason.

Is there an elephant right behind you?
Yes? No?

If you're inclined to say no, there's obviously some evidence for that which has suggested that there at least probably isn't an elephant immediately behind you. That evidence is based on your categorical understanding of what an "elephant" is. Such as, you turned around, and given what we know about elephants (that they are large, visible, animals that can be generally detected by the functioning eye), provided there were no barriers to your sight, scanning the area carefully and failing to find an elephant IS evidence that there isn't an elephant right behind you.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence IF we have searched for said evidence in a manner that would be expected (based on theory) to turn up said evidence.

If, when we turned on the Large Hadron Collider and did experiments in the expected mass range of the current standard model graviton being predicted, we never detected any decay products expected from gravitons, then that would have been good evidence that the particular subatomic particle being theorized didn't exist.

You have to be rigorous, though. You can't just run the experiment with one collision, just as you can't evaluate whether there's an elephant behind you by measuring one photon. The process is statistical, and the more information you gather, the more certain the conclusion becomes.

This is fundamental to science. Rejection of that notion IS rejection of science. Science simply doesn't work without it.

in a particular being

What is a particular being?

You know, there's no such thing as a prototypical chicken in reality. There is a large population of many individuals, each of whom are unique- genetically, as well as based on environmental variables.

Likewise, there is no prototypical human. Or dog. Or anything.

If you "prove" sentience in one animal, you have ONLY proven it in that particular animal, at that particular time.

You don't have proof that anybody around you is sentient. But we have very good evidence that some people are sentient, and not a lot of evidence to the contrary. Given that those who are tested are sentient, we make the ASSUMPTION, based on INDUCTION that similar things exhibit similar qualities.

When one human is shown to be sentient, we assume the rest are.

When one apple is shown to be red, if that's the only example we have, it is rational to assume all apples are red. We don't know it for sure, of course, but we should assume that until we get more evidence, or evidence to the contrary, because it's the only thing we have.
When we find out some apples are green, we modify our assumptions, to the understanding that apples come in red, green, and perhaps a range of similar colors. Now our assumptions are narrowed down based on evidence, and involve the shape and general size of apples, maybe the taste and texture.

The more examples of apples we get, the more accurate our assumptions become. But it's crucial to remember that it was not irrational to assume that all apples were red, when you only had one example. This was a provisional assumption. It was not certainty, it was just the default position based on reasonable induction.

In science, inductive similarity is not proof of something, but it is evidence of it. And the more examples you have, the more evidence you build up for certain qualities of things.

The closer something fits a pattern, the more likely, and the more reasonable, to assume those inductive qualities apply to it.

When we see something walking on four legs, with fur, we assume it is a mammal. Is that proof? No. It is an inductive assumption based on similarity and difference with other categories of thing.

When you say "particular being", the very notion is meaningless without some inherent sense of inductive classification.
There are things that fit more closely, and more distantly, with the prototype of that being which you hold in your head. Nothing perfectly fits it.

By admitting that anything at all is sentient, then you must rationally assume that things that are related to it are probably sentient too, with the value of that probability in respect to how closely related they are.
If you do not do this, you can't assume any given human is sentient without it being individually proved.
Likewise, you couldn't assume the ground in front of you is solid without it being proved- we can not function without induction.

I explained how induction is an essential part of science, but it goes beyond that into logic; without accepting the rational validity and necessity of induction, you're being a hypocrite by breathing, because you are naturally assuming (through induction) that the next breath of air is not poisonous based on its categorical similarity to the previous breath.

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

Not only can you assume it, but you should assume it, and you must assume it in order to be rational.

It is the necessary default position, given an understanding of evolution, and rational principles like Occam's razor.

You can't assume that it is absolute proof, of course it isn't, but you can assume it relates a sense of overwhelming probability (the closer the relationship, the more probable).

Such an outlook is not self-correcting....

It is self-correcting. If we find evidence from a closer relative, then the new evidence automatically supersedes the old evidence as a priority for inductive assumptions.

This kind of reasoning is the basis of scientific knowledge. Are you saying science isn't self-correcting?

Assumptions from induction are only the default assumption. They are not holy writ, carved in stone. They are what we must provisionally accept until we have new evidence that suggests otherwise.

Luckily you've already proved to me that cows and chickens are sentient enough to warrant moral respect lol.

OK, that's cool... but I shouldn't have to.

Showing that the closest relative we have information about is sentient should be enough.
If you found a closer relative for which there was evidence that it wasn't sentient, then that would be evidence to the contrary. The closer the relative, the more applicable the information about it. That's how evolution works.

We can also get into induction based on environmental niche and observed behavior, but I don't want to complicate things if you haven't accepted that science is inductive yet.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sometime's I wish I could live with ignorance, because, well, ignorance is bliss.

This is exactly my point. You want to be ignorant. You only care about things you see, and you don't want to see things.
You only care about things that you are forced to care about by your biological sentiments. You only care about it because it makes you feel good or bad. You just want to get that good feeling, and avoid the bad feeling. That's it. Purely selfish.

Unlike you, we don't want to be ignorant. We go out of our ways to know and think about those things.

If I see a suffering animal I think "Jeez, poor guy." and I go back to doing what I was doing before, not thinking about it.

You choose not to think about it. We choose to think about it.

You intend to be ignorant, and keep it out of your mind, because you don't want to feel bad about the bad things you do. Because you're selfish.

No, I would want to know. I would ask and until I got solid proof to prove it, I wouldn't believe. When I got solid proof, I would believe and I would want to know more and to get my mother back. I don't only want to stay happy and self-satisfied. I said and I say again, I would have killed myself long ago if that were the case.

That's bullshit. See above. By your own words, you sometimes wish you were ignorant of the things you already know. You don't seek out more information. You stop thinking about animals, and you don't care because you put it out of your mind.

You wouldn't want to know. You'd be happy with the clone, and you'd prefer it that way, not knowing, because then you wouldn't have to feel personally uncomfortable. Why? Because you don't actually care about anything aside from yourself.

You even wish your biological reflexes of empathy were even less than they are.

You're a wannabe psychopath, and a nihilist.

The reason you haven't killed yourself is because you're afraid of death. You have no reason to live beyond self satisfaction.

You can't make someone's pshycological profile from a few forum posts.

I'm just taking what you have said, and how you have behaved here.

You've dodged questions, and avoided addressing the issue, because you don't want to think about it.

If you did, you'd have to realize your are not a moral person.

Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?

You haven't answered my questions. You've dodged them. Why? Because you have no rational answers, so you aren't even willing to think about them, because it makes you uncomfortable.

You don't really care about anything beyond your own comfort and ego. The only reason you started replying to me is to defend your ego.

How about stepping outside of your egotistical defensiveness, and answering some of the questions that I, and others here, have asked?
Can you do that? No, you can't. If you could, that would mean caring about something other than yourself.

With animals, yes, call me a hypocrite, give me your best shot. You won't change my opinion, to me they are just animals. But with people, I am not one. I have morals.

As I said clearly, and you ignored, suicide bombers think they have morals too.

You thinking you have morals doesn't make it so. I explained all of this, in detail. You either didn't read it, or you chose not to understand it because the truth of your inconsistency makes you uncomfortable.

If you have any stones at all, why not go back through my post and address the actual points I made, and answer my questions?

I do stuff even when I'm not blackmailed by fuzzy tendencies.

No, you don't. By definition, you don't. You have used this as an excuse for inaction. I quoted you on it several times, and nothing you have said since then contradicts that beyond this bald assertion which is clearly false.

Which is it? You've been inconsistent, but at least one of these must be true:

1. You don't feel bad about animals dying for your food, and so you don't care about it. This is called amorality. You only care about things that give you good and bad feels- which is to say you only care about yourself, and your own experiences (whether they're caused by physical or emotional stimuli beyond your control). You wish you could be ignorant and indifferent to the world, in bliss, because seeing bad things makes you personally uncomfortable- evidence that you don't really care about what happens to others, just the bad feelings it produces inside you.

2. You believe that your personal whim and opinions on morality are moral fact. Either you think you're god, and can dictate what is and is not moral for the whole universe based on your personal views, or you think morality is relative, and everybody's opinion is equally valid with respect to their own personal morality. In the latter case, what sets you apart from suicide bombers, who in their own opinions are also moral? Nothing. If morality is relative to opinion, then everybody is moral just by believing they are moral, and morality has no real meaning or use.

3. You believe it's OK to kill non-human animals, and cause their suffering, because of some fundamental difference between non-human animals and humans. That is, you ascribe moral value to some morally relevant characteristic that humans have, but other animals lack. In which case, what is that characteristic? If you're a rational person, you can think about this and name it.


Which one is true? Or are more than one of them true about you?

My assumption is, that because you've been wholly irrational and inconsistent, all three of them are a little bit true of your beliefs. You don't even know what you believe. But the closest to what you believe still seems to be #1.

And I care about being a good person too.

If you care about being a good person, then stop being so inconsistent. Look at what I said above- which one is true for you? 1, 2, or 3? Or a combination of two of the above?

Caring about being a good person means first understanding what it means to be a good person, which means understanding the concept of good. Figure out what you believe about what 'good' means.

And when did I say vegans are bleeding hearts?

It was an unspoken assumption.

You don't feel bad about animals dying, therefore you're not vegan.

But you know what? A lot of vegans don't feel bad about that. Many vegans are vegan entirely for logical, rational reasons. It's not just about how we feel about things.

You don't have to feel bad about something to recognize that, logically, it is morally wrong and we shouldn't do it.

As my mother always said "Treat people the way they treat others.

Wow, you got your "morality" from your mother then, huh? No wonder you're a bad person if you're following advice like this.

That's terrible, terrible advice. Absolutely horrible. Your mother is an idiot if she thinks that's good advice- do you think she's ever thought about it, for even a second? Have you?

Consider the implications of that practice in game theory:

There is a place for social shunning, but if everybody treats others badly because they treat others badly, then EVERYBODY is treating others badly and so deserves to be treated badly. You might as well say "treat everybody like shit", because that's the practical conclusion of that kind of thinking.

In order for people to treat each other well, they need to begin by extending kindness even where they don't think it's deserved.

What an irresponsible parent, to convey such a twisted sense of reciprocity to her child. For shame.

Do you listen to yourself? What should I do, treat the people who make others lifes a living hell the same way I treat everyone else?

You make lives a living hell. Do you deserve to be treated like shit? Maybe.

No, I won't do that. Call me selfish, but those people don't deserve it.

You're selfish. You only treat people well when you want to treat them well. You only treat people who you like well, because it makes you feel good, and you get something back from it. That's the definition of selfish.

What people do or don't deserve isn't for you to decide.

According to the suicide bombers, the infidels deserve to die because they treat Allah with disrespect. Opinions.

Do you know what makes a good person? Someone who can admit that ,like everyone else, is a very shitty creature.

That's not what makes a good person. That's what makes a shitty person who just happens to be honest about it.
A good person is one who does more good than harm to other sentient beings in the world.

As you demonstrated, your mother raised you with a very twisted sense of morality. You even confuse the act of admitting to being a shitty person with being a good person. What kind of twisted troll logic is that?

If you say you're a bad person, that makes you a good person. WTF?

Have you ever formed a rational thought of your own? I'm curious. At this point, I'm very skeptical.


I have plenty of flaws, but admitting them is not what makes me a good person- working to fix them would, slowly, bring me closer.
I am, for example, not very patient. I'm working on that. Look how much time I've spent here trying to teach you, and addressing your laughably bad reasoning. I'm not here to insult you- I want more than anything here to see you learn, because it would go a long way to restoring my faith in humanity.

Could I be nicer? Maybe, sure. But the other posters were pretty nice to you, and you shat all over them, and ignored their honest questions.
But this conversation isn't about me. You're here defending your morality- which is the topic of the conversation. Addressing my morals is both an ad hominem fallacy, and a red herring. If you would like to start another thread to challenge my morals, please do so- perhaps we can discuss it- but that's another conversation entirely.

I bear no ill will against you, but you are deeply, deeply wrong and delusional. Your views on morality are twisted and irrational- full of holes and contradictions. I have demonstrated those holes and contradictions, but you steam forward, ignoring them.

I'm trying to help you reason out what you really believe here. If you would answer my questions, maybe we could actually do that.

You took time of your life to make up a phsycological profile insulting me, saying I don't love my own mother and saying that you are the perfect example of a good person. But deep down you know you are shitty. But you can't deal with that and to feel better about yourself you insult me. Am I wrong? See, I can also invent a phsycological profile of someone with the express purpose of insulting them. Don't pretend you're better than you actually are.

Maybe you're right, but that's unrelated to this conversation. I have made valid arguments against your inconsistent and irrational moral claims.

I could be Adolf Hitler, and my arguments would still be valid, because they stand on their own. Attacking me does nothing to defend your own arguments.

Stop using an ad hominem fallacy, and start engaging in the conversation like a rational human being. Address my actual arguments with logic.

If you want to criticize me, as I said, you're welcome to it, but start another conversation, as that's unrelated to this one.

I fucking give up. You can question whatever you like, but not my love for my mother.

And yet, you refuse to answer any of the questions that have been posed.

My conclusion is that your beliefs and practices most closely fall into case #1, making you a completely amoral nihilist- and yes, you don't love your mother, you just have a hormonal attachment to her that makes you uncomfortable when you have knowledge of bad things happening to her (and you'd rather not know when bad things happen to her- you prefer ignorant bliss to knowledge).

Is #1 false? Then contradict it. Explain which case you actually fall in. Do you instead subscribe to #2? Or is it #3?

If it's not #1, tell me which it is, and we can discuss it.

If it's #2 or #3, I'll admit you may love your mother, and we can move on to discuss your actual views (#2 or #3, or maybe a combination of the two).

Currently, the preponderance of evidence points to #1. Answer my questions, and we can determine if that is, or is not, actually the case.

[Dudugs]

And yet, you refuse to answer any of the questions that have been posed.

Do you know why I haven't answered? Because you're the densest motherfucker I met. You'll just repeat the same thing over and over again and ignore everything I say. Ok, ill answer

This is exactly my point. You want to be ignorant.

"Sometimes"

We go out of our ways to know and think about those things.

And so do I.

You choose not to think about it. We choose to think about it.

I don't think about because it doesn't bother me, not because it bothers me.

bad things you do

I didn't do anything wrong.

You don't seek out more information.

And how do you know that? Stop making things you don't know up.

You'd be happy with the clone, and you'd prefer it that way, not knowing, because then you wouldn't have to feel personally uncomfortable.

No, I wouldn't? How do I know? Oh yeah! I am I, so I know what choices I would make. You are you, so you have no idea what choices I would make.

You're a wannabe psychopath, and a nihilist.

Holy shit, I'm a wannabe psychopath, I am rising in the scale! woohooo! Mom get the camera we gotta celebrate!

You have no reason to live beyond self satisfaction.

Again, if I lived only for self satisfaction, I would have killed myself long ago. I have been trough years with little to no self satisfaction.

You haven't answered my questions. You've dodged them.

You've dodged questions too. If you're such a good person, what was the best thing you did for someone? I'm waiting.

3. You believe it's OK to kill non-human animals, and cause their suffering, because of some fundamental difference between non-human animals and humans. That is, you ascribe moral value to some morally relevant characteristic that humans have, but other animals lack. In which case, what is that characteristic? If you're a rational person, you can think about this and name it.

I think it is okay to kill an animal if it's for food, leather, etc.

It was an unspoken assumption.

Stop making assumptions because you'll look like a retard when they are wrong.

In order for people to treat each other well, they need to begin by extending kindness even where they don't think it's deserved.

I do that. First I am kind to someone, I try to rationalize with them. Eventually, if they keep being an asshole, I'm gonna stop doing that.

You make lives a living hell.

What lives am I making a living hell? The animals that I didn't kill?

You only treat people who you like well, because it makes you feel good, and you get something back from it.

I have helped many strangers even when I didn't get anything back. Even when I lost something.

That's the definition of selfish.

Lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure.

-Oxford dictionary definition of selfish. Helping people is = Lacking consideration for other people. Your logic makes perfect sense.

What people do or don't deserve isn't for you to decide.

The way I treat people is up for me to decide. I won't treat a stranger the same way I treat my childhood bully.

As you demonstrated, your mother raised you with a very twisted sense of morality.

Don't. Insult. My. Mother.

Have you ever formed a rational thought of your own? I'm curious. At this point, I'm very skeptical.

Wait, I'm forming a rational thought. The gears are spinning at will come out of it:

brimstoneSalad doesn't know shit about my life.

Oh welp, you heard it, rational thought. Until you know how someone acts, you can't judge them for their actions.

I have plenty of flaws, but admitting them is not what makes me a good person- working to fix them would, slowly, bring me closer.

Exactly. But before working on them, you gotta admit them.

Could I be nicer? Maybe, sure. But the other posters were pretty nice to you, and you shat all over them, and ignored their honest questions.

I was as nice as everyone else who was nice to me, however I shat on them?

I bear no ill will against you, but you are deeply, deeply wrong and delusional. Your views on morality are twisted and irrational- full of holes and contradictions. I have demonstrated those holes and contradictions, but you steam forward, ignoring them.

Some bad phrasing on my part made you think I am deeply delusional and have twisted views. I am trying to fix that, but instead of looking at the good things, you stretch what I say in your favour to make me look twisted and irrational.

I'm trying to help you reason out what you really believe here. If you would answer my questions, maybe we could actually do that.

I answered your questions, you just insult me more and further try to make me look bad. That's not helping.

Maybe you're right, but that's unrelated to this conversation. I have made valid arguments against your inconsistent and irrational moral claims.

Yet you are wrong.

If you want to criticize me, as I said, you're welcome to it, but start another conversation, as that's unrelated to this one.

If you want to criticize me, as I said, you're welcome to it, but start another conversation, as that's unrelated to this one.

And yet, you refuse to answer any of the questions that have been posed.

My conclusion is that your beliefs and practices most closely fall into case #1, making you a completely amoral nihilist- and yes, you don't love your mother, you just have a hormonal attachment to her that makes you uncomfortable when you have knowledge of bad things happening to her (and you'd rather not know when bad things happen to her- you prefer ignorant bliss to knowledge).

Is #1 false? Then contradict it. Explain which case you actually fall in. Do you instead subscribe to #2? Or is it #3?

If it's not #1, tell me which it is, and we can discuss it.

If it's #2 or #3, I'll admit you may love your mother, and we can move on to discuss your actual views (#2 or #3, or maybe a combination of the two).

Currently, the preponderance of evidence points to #1. Answer my questions, and we can determine if that is, or is not, actually the case.

I will talk with you look a normal fucking person if you stop jumping to conclusions. And as I said before 3.

[thebestofenergy]

Do you know why I haven't answered? Because you're the densest motherfucker I met. You'll just repeat the same thing over and over again and ignore everything I say. Ok, ill answer

He's not repeating the same things over and over again ignoring everything you say. You're doing so, because you want to dodge questions, giving no rational tought.

I didn't do anything wrong.

Wow, you've never done anything wrong?
Just for the record, killing sentient animals for selfish reasons is wrong. Unless you can give a reason why it's not besides 'they're just animals', that alone doesn't make sense.

And how do you know that? Stop making things you don't know up.

Like he already said a number of times, he's drawing these conclusions from your posts. Prove him/we wrong.

3. You believe it's OK to kill non-human animals, and cause their suffering, because of some fundamental difference between non-human animals and humans. That is, you ascribe moral value to some morally relevant characteristic that humans have, but other animals lack. In which case, what is that characteristic? If you're a rational person, you can think about this and name it.

I think it is okay to kill an animal if it's for food, leather, etc.

You didn't even answer his question.

What lives am I making a living hell? The animals that I didn't kill?

Yes, exactly, you supporting factory farming.

Don't. Insult. My. Mother.

Oh shit, watch out!
He's pointing out the fact that her moral basis, that she taught you, was not moral at all. In fact, it's very twisted.
If you think that 'Treat people the way they treat others' is morally ok, then you've never deeply tought about it.
That is a 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy from your part. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Have you ever formed a rational thought of your own? I'm curious. At this point, I'm very skeptical.

Wait, I'm forming a rational thought. The gears are spinning at will come out of it:

brimstoneSalad doesn't know shit about my life.

Oh welp, you heard it, rational thought. Until you know how someone acts, you can't judge them for their actions.

Funny enough, it's not a rational tought at all. He already explained why and and on what basis he's trying to describe you.

I was as nice as everyone else who was nice to me, however I shat on them?

You ignored (and are ignoring) questions

I answered your questions, you just insult me more and further try to make me look bad. That's not helping.

You're talking about insulting?

I will talk with you look a normal fucking person

Because you're the densest motherfucker I met.

Stop making assumptions because you'll look like a retard when they are wrong.

Maybe you're right, but that's unrelated to this conversation. I have made valid arguments against your inconsistent and irrational moral claims.

Yet you are wrong.

Yet, you're not trying to prove him wrong. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[Neptual]

Do you know why I haven't answered? Because you're the densest motherfucker I met. You'll just repeat the same thing over and over again and ignore everything I say. Ok, ill answer

"Sometimes"

Well we all know now. The same thing you've been trying to deny you've shown yourself to do but only "sometimes". What does "sometimes" mean? That's a relative term me sometimes could me all the time.

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.

It doesn't mean that you're a heartless monster. But it does mean that you're uneducated enough to know that we are animals.

I don't think about because it doesn't bother me, not because it bothers me.

This is what we're saying. The fact that it doesn't bother you is frighting. Do you have no sympathy for the lives of other living and sentient beings when you very well know what's going on? Or do they have to show facial expression for it to mean anything to you?

And how do you know that? Stop making things you don't know up.

Well at first I would've assumed that you weren't aware of the situation regarding factory farms. Because if you did you probably haven't made your previous posts. But since you admitted to have known about it, this is why we call you a "heartless monster" a "nihilist" and other verbal words that are meant to be used as constructive criticism.

No, I wouldn't? How do I know? Oh yeah! I am I, so I know what choices I would make. You are you, so you have no idea what choices I would make.

No that's not how your body works. When you are struck into fear or terror you want to do something but does that mean you are going to do it? No. An easier way of putting it would be, unless you've experienced it you can't make assertions on what you would've done. The same way how I can't tell you what I would've done at the Sandy Hook shooting. I wasn't there, that's an unfamiliar kind of fear that I would've been stricken with, how am I supposed to know how my body will react and comply with me psychologically.

You've dodged questions too. If you're such a good person, what was the best thing you did for someone? I'm waiting.

Whether you're a good person doesn't depend on what you've done, but how many times you've done it.

I think it is okay to kill an animal if it's for food, leather, etc.

Oh so you it would be okay if I killed you used your skin for a rug, and then eat your flesh right. Like I've said before stop saying "animals" as if we aren't we are I suggest you do some research on it, but then again it doesn't effect you emotionally so.

What lives am I making a living hell? The animals that I didn't kill?

Precisely

I have helped many strangers even when I didn't get anything back. Even when I lost something.

Wrong. You did get something back the satisfactory feeling that "Hey I did something good for someone, that must make a good person!".

The way I treat people is up for me to decide. I won't treat a stranger the same way I treat my childhood bully.

Hello class! It's Prof. Dan here and today we're going to take a class on morality and ethics. Pay very close attention because there will be a test afterwards!

Now then first and only lesson!

The first lesson is on human morality and ethics.

If a homeless man on the street asks for money, you give the money to him! Why? Because what's $5 going to do to you? But, let's say that homeless man is your childhood bully begging for you to spare and have mercy asking for some change? What do you do? Obviously walk right past him, after all he deserves it, right?
Wrong! You give him the money you know why? Because as soon as someone has realized the error in their ways then you should show mercy. No this is not a bible verse the bible is stupid.

Test: "When someone has realized the error in their ways you should show ______."

Don't. Insult. My. Mother.

Not insulting your mother insulting the way she raised you.

I have plenty of flaws, but admitting them is not what makes me a good person- working to fix them would, slowly, bring me closer.

Exactly. But before working on them, you gotta admit them.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. He was basically saying that crying about something isn't going to solve it.

It seems you're pretty fond if Kettle Logic friend.

[brimstoneSalad]

I will talk with you look a normal fucking person if you stop jumping to conclusions. And as I said before 3.

Thank you. Now maybe we can make some progress.

3. You believe it's OK to kill non-human animals, and cause their suffering, because of some fundamental difference between non-human animals and humans. That is, you ascribe moral value to some morally relevant characteristic that humans have, but other animals lack. In which case, what is that characteristic? If you're a rational person, you can think about this and name it.

I think it is okay to kill an animal if it's for food, leather, etc.

That doesn't answer the relevant question in option #3.
All animals can be eaten, or made into leather.
Human is called "long pig", and some cultures have killed and eaten people in the past. Human leather has also been used for book binding.

What makes it wrong to kill, then eat or make leather out of human animals, but not wrong to kill, then eat or make leather out of non-human animals?

Is it because:

A. Humans are usually more intelligent than other animals
B. Humans were made in god's image and have souls
C. It's against social contract (e.g. illegal) to kill humans

OR:

Do you mean you believe it's fine to kill and eat or make leather out of human animals too?

You've dodged questions too. If you're such a good person, what was the best thing you did for someone? I'm waiting.

I answered that whether I'm a good or bad person is irrelevant to the topic at hand. This discussion is about your morals, not mine.

The best things I have done for a person is save a life. It's irrelevant to the topic.

Stop making assumptions because you'll look like a retard when they are wrong.

I have said repeatedly that I could be wrong. The assumptions I make are the ones which fit best given the information presented.

You have now presented new information, in asserting you follow option #3.
This contradicts a number of your previous statements.

Therefore, I can only conclude that either you were lying or mistaken about your own beliefs before, or you have learned something and are changing your mind about some of your previous claims. Maybe you are gaining a new understanding of your own beliefs.
Whatever the case, if it's the latter case and you are revising your position then I congratulate you on your new found open mindedness.

If you truly reject option #1, then you may indeed love your mother.
So far, most of your claims have been more compatible with #1 than #3. If you are changing to #3, then that's commendable, and progress on your part in becoming more rational.

I do that. First I am kind to someone, I try to rationalize with them. Eventually, if they keep being an asshole, I'm gonna stop doing that.

Then why didn't you say that? That's a little different.

The way you phrased it before was literally terrible. You understand why, right?

It's good to be kind and compassionate to everybody, but of course patience has limits.
It's not that it's right for you to stop being kind to them- a perfect person would continue being kind- but it's understandable.

If your mother taught you something closer to that, then that's another thing entirely. If you were mistaken, or mis-phrased what your mother taught you, then I take back what I said.

What you said before was very much evil. I hope you understand why.

What lives am I making a living hell? The animals that I didn't kill?

Others have explained economics to you. You have ignored them.

If you pay a hitman to kill somebody, who is responsible for killing them, you or the hitman?
If you pay a farmer to raise and kill an animal for you to eat, who is responsible for raising and killing that animal?

The farmer, and hitman, are just doing their jobs- they're just making a living to provide for their families.
They may share some of that blame for choosing that profession instead of another (if they had a choice), but it's the person who orders the kill who is ultimately the author of the event.

This is very basic economics, and very basic moral philosophy.

If you're that ignorant, it's because you chose to be ignorant.
Stop being ignorant and irrational about this stuff. Take responsibility for yourself.

This is what is frustrating people. And they have calmly and patiently explained it to you. These are obvious things that you should already know.

Until you know how someone acts, you can't judge them for their actions.

See above: That IS how you're acting. Being deliberately ignorant is an action. There's no excuse for not understanding basic economics at your age.

There's even less of an excuse since it has been explained to you several times in this very thread.

You have been behaving very poorly here. It is largely that behavior that I am judging.

I have helped many strangers even when I didn't get anything back. Even when I lost something.
[..]
The way I treat people is up for me to decide. I won't treat a stranger the same way I treat my childhood bully.

These kinds of claims support option #1 and option #2. They do not support option #3.

You're backsliding.

In other words, you're saying you treat people how you feel like treating them. And whether you treat them well or badly, you feel morally justified in doing so because of your feelings and opinions.

Feelings and opinions don't justify behavior. That's moral subjectivism/relativism, or amorality: Options #2 and #1.

You should say:

"I would treat my childhood bully like shit, and it's wrong of me to do so, and a better person would even treat him well, but I'm not perfect- sometimes out lesser natures win out".

That would be rational and consistent with objective morality based on some inherent quality: option #3.

You don't have to treat your bully well, but when you treat him like shit, you have to recognize that you're probably not being the best person you can be. Be honest about it.

We all do bad things sometimes. It's important to be able to admit they're bad, and try to improve. Human nature- none of us are perfect. We just try to be better.

Lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure.

-Oxford dictionary definition of selfish. Helping people is = Lacking consideration for other people. Your logic makes perfect sense.

No, helping only people you want to help, and being shit to people you don't like- that's amoral. It's following personal whim, not morality, and it's founded in selfishness.

See option #1.

If you subscribe to option #3, then Helping people you want to help is moral, but being shitty to people you don't like is immoral.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want objective morality, you have to deal with the fact that sometimes you'll want to do bad things. Sometimes you will do bad things. Of course, that doesn't make you a bad person unless you make a habit of doing more bad things than good things- it just makes you human.

Exactly. But before working on them, you gotta admit them.

Right. Which is what you're not doing when you try to justify being a bad person to those you don't like or don't care about.

I'm mean to people some times. It can be wrong. I probably shouldn't be. I try to be better. See?
I might even like to be mean to people I don't like, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I was as nice as everyone else who was nice to me, however I shat on them?

You did, you shat all over their attempts to engage rationally with you. You may have done it unintentionally, but you owe them an apology.

You were polite enough in words, but you ignored their arguments, which is deeply rude in this context.

I would prefer you cussed at me constantly, but actually addressed my arguments. For most people here, it's the same way. The etiquette on this forum (and in the rational/skeptic community in general) is to address people's arguments, and not doing so is rude.

Some bad phrasing on my part made you think I am deeply delusional and have twisted views. I am trying to fix that, but instead of looking at the good things, you stretch what I say in your favour to make me look twisted and irrational.

You just need to clearly answer questions.

If you're changing your mind, that's fine. That's the mark of an open mind.

You made a good start by saying you accept option #3. That's progress. Now we just need to work out some inconsistencies, and find out WHY you believe option #3.

Why is it OK to kill non-humans for food and leather, but not OK to kill humans for food and leather?

A. Humans are usually more intelligent than other animals
B. Humans were made in god's image and have souls
C. It's against social contract (e.g. illegal) to kill humans

That's the next step.

I answered your questions, you just insult me more and further try to make me look bad. That's not helping.

Now you are answering some questions. Thank you.

Yet you are wrong.

I may have mistaken assumptions, but my logic was valid. At the time, what you were saying was closest to option #1.

Other posters asked you the same questions I did, in different words. Most of them you ignored. For the rest, your answers were consistent with option #1.

Now your answers are changing. That's good. Option #1 sucks.

If you want to criticize me, as I said, you're welcome to it, but start another conversation, as that's unrelated to this one.

If you want to criticize me, as I said, you're welcome to it, but start another conversation, as that's unrelated to this one.

Mimicry aside, If you agree with option #3 now, then much of my former criticism is no longer accurate.

If that's the case, then I take back anything that is no longer consistent with your views with regards to morality as explained in option #3.

The topic of the discussion, however, being a defense of your moral virtue (your claim that you are a moral person), means that criticism of you is relevant to the conversation.

If I came out and said "I own slaves, but I'm a moral person" that would be a claim that you could then criticize, and attack my character as not being moral as related to that and other similar matters.

My argument against your claim is not that I am a moral person (as I said, I could be Hitler for all you know, and it makes no difference to my actual argument), but simply that you are not (which is relevant).


Thank you for answering the question, regarding which option. Now that we know it's option #3, we just need to know why: A. B. or C. Then we can carry on with an increasingly rational conversation.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is what we're saying. The fact that it doesn't bother you is frighting.

I don't think so. The issue is the inconsistency.

There are plenty of vegans who aren't initially bothered by non-human animal death and suffering personally, but reject it on philosophical grounds - due to reason and logic - in order to be consistent.
Of course, once a person becomes vegan, they can give themselves more permission to care about animals, freed from the force of cognitive dissonance, and natural compassion will probably grow thereafter.

But it seems to stand that one of the most commendable good deeds is that which goes against our selfish natures.

If you naturally feel bad about animal suffering, and avoid animal suffering for that reason, that's great.

But if you don't naturally care about animal suffering but avoid it because it's wrong, for deeply help philosophical and moral reasons, in many ways that's a more profound moral statement. It's something you weren't inclined to do, but you did it because it's right.

It's kind of like some definitions of courage: Not being fearless, but acting in spite of fear.

You don't have to feel bad about animals to go vegan. You just have to value morality, and choose to be consistent with that in your actions.

[GPC100s]

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence IF we have searched for said evidence in a manner that would be expected (based on theory) to turn up said evidence.

Yes, that's why evidence for sentience is needed or else I must conclude there is no sentience... But I think I get what you're saying: a test is needed to prove sentience exists, but if that test fails, then that proves no sentience (until someone can propose a better test lol).

What is a particular being?

You know, there's no such thing as a prototypical chicken in reality. There is a large population of many individuals, each of whom are unique- genetically, as well as based on environmental variables.
[...]
When one human is shown to be sentient, we assume the rest are.

I mean species. I've already told you how I came to the conclusion of not solipsism: there needs to be an explanation for where I come from (whether I can find out about it or not) and I implied occam's razor to do that. There is only evidence for the idea of myself coming from my parents, I am sentient, therefore it's only rational to say that sentience must come from them... Now with chickens, their sentience must come from the other chicken parents in their species, so they're treated the same; but evolution changes things over time on the species level so not everything will become sentient. Also, sometimes abilities evolve independently but reach the same conclusion (co-evolution) so assumptions cannot be made.

This leaves the question: what is the default position on whether or not to kill? And here we go talking about general morality again, which we disagree on lol.

[Dudugs]

You know it's quite unfortunate that some misundertandings led you to believe that I'm a wannabe psychopath. I could try to prove you that I'm not, but nothing will convince you, not even that childhood story when I made some bullies bully me instead of the mentally disabled kid. So instead, I chose to embrace my wannabe psycopath personality.

I already bought a ski mask and a knife. Here, look at one of my selfies:


I also have a list of victims:

1. brimstoneSalad (for showing me the wonderful world of being a psychopath
2. José Sócrates (god dammit, is it that hard not to bring a country into crisis?)
3. Ubisoft's CEO (ಠ_ಠ just wow, what an asshole)
4. That sniper that always manages to kill me in TF2
5. My mother who I do not love

Yes, I know this list is tiny, I mean, the Pope has bigger kill list than I do. But bear in mind that I am only a wannabe psychopath. Don't, I aspire to be a full-on psychopath, but it's a long road. Eventually I will kill everyone, all 7 billion people, except Gabe Newell, 'cause deep down he is the only thing I ever loved (if you don't count Mudkips, such cute fellows) and with him I will re-invent humanity as a much less lame species.

im cuming 4 u, brimstonesalad ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-Dudugs