Philosophical Vegan Forum

If you look it up the price equation, you will see that empathy is just another way to increase human numbers. As humans we do whats best for our species and e evolved a way to cook meat which is why our brains evolved to the capacity it is now. So, it's our culture to eat meat because it allowed us to make our brains better. I learned this thought very credible sources. I believe we have the right to do anything we want as long as it dosnt effect another human being. We our at the top of our food chain, and we our aloud to do anything as long as it dosnt put our survival at risk.

Superlol wrote:As humans we do whats best for our species and e evolved a way to cook meat which is why our brains evolved to the capacity it is now.

Your point being?

Superlol wrote:So, it's our culture to eat meat because it allowed us to make our brains better.

No, it's not our culture because it made us evolve our brain.
Meat is a part of many of our cultures because people want so. Why they want so?
Tradition, selfishness, convenience, misinformation.
Most cultures are not based on rationality.

Superlol wrote:I learned this thought very credible sources.

What?

Superlol wrote:I believe we have the right to do anything we want as long as it dosnt effect another human being. We our at the top of our food chain, and we our aloud to do anything as long as it dosnt put our survival at risk.

You believe? Based on what? How does the food chain matter to determine what's morally wrong and what's not?
You only care about human beings? Please answer this question then: what are the qualities in human beings that make you care about them?
Also, animal mass production is the most environmentally destructive industry, so it does put our survival at risk. It's an unstustainable way for the future.

The answer to your question is, the very top of the animal kingdom. We are the so far the masters of evolution, the dominant force on this planet, and soon maybe this solar system. No other animal has such a developed brain. I personally believe we should create a new ecosystem. One with trees and the animals we need or want, separate from this planet, that we have destroyed. If you think about the meaning of life for one second, you will see our meaning is to evolve and adapt the best, to keep life going constantly. We as humans have achieved this which makes us dominant force and more important then any animal. If you look at the price equation, you will see the reason we have empathy is to make more human, think like this we are less likely to kill other humans if we have empathy, and we will risk our lives to save others, to increase our numbers. Since we as humans are massively overpopulated, we will start losing this empathy. If you want veganism to sustain on the will of empathy for life, don't be racist and do it for all life ( plants included).

Superlol wrote:The answer to your question is, the very top of the animal kingdom.

There is no top. Id like to see how you would fair naked without any weapons against a wolf, bear, lion, shark, etc. You would discover very quickly how weak and fragile we really are.

We are the so far the masters of evolution, the dominant force on this planet, and soon maybe this solar system.

masters of evolution? Dominant force? What are you talking about?

No other animal has such a developed brain.

so what? How is that relevant? There are some humans who have severe cognitive issues, resulting in an overall lower mental capacity than most other animals. Would you be okay with using these humans in painful biomedical experiments (without consent) or harvest their organs?

I personally believe we should create a new ecosystem. One with trees and the animals we need or want, separate from this planet, that we have destroyed.

why not fix the world we have?

If you think about the meaning of life for one second, you will see our meaning is to evolve and adapt the best, to keep life going constantly.

Life has no overall meaning. It is an unguided process with no goal.

We as humans have achieved this which makes us dominant force and more important then any animal.

We have achieved what? Why does this make us more important?

If you want veganism to sustain on the will of empathy for life, don't be racist and do it for all life ( plants included).

Sentience is the issue, not "life". Plants are not a race, so you cannot be racist to plants.

First off, please use some common scence, we as humans did not achieve the top if the food chain. Food chain as defined by Wikipedia is (Food chain A food chain is a linear sequence of links in a food web starting from a species that are called producers in the web and ends at a species that is called decomposers species in the web. Wikipedia) we developed our brains unlike other life forms, we were able to create tools, wich made us dominante force on the planet. Mostly because we ate cooked meat.
You said " It is an unguided process with no goal" for the meaning of life, BUT theres something called evolution wich is our programming. Evolution makes us adapt characteristics on if it works we keep it if it dosnt we don't keep it. All our charecteristics our just that programming over millions to billions of years, just like everything else living on this planet. Your very ignorent to suggest there is no meaning while i provide evidence and you just deny it. Using what I said you can easily find out the meaning for your life and it's to fight extinction and makes us able to survive. To find the meaning you must find the opposite of survival and thats extinction. Our goal as the most powerfull being is to prevent our extinction.
Remember when you explained to the muslim the reason why we don't have eyes on our feat. Look back on that.
I believe we should fix the world we have and make it better for us. Our empathy is primarly towards other humans. Wich we our losing as a species using the price equation and higher human numbers (read previous comment)
By dominant force i was talking about the food chain you dint bother to look up.

I would love to see your rebutle against this.

Superlol wrote:The answer to your question is, the very top of the animal kingdom. We are the so far the masters of evolution, the dominant force on this planet, and soon maybe this solar system. No other animal has such a developed brain.

Again, your point is?

Superlol wrote:I personally believe we should create a new ecosystem. One with trees and the animals we need or want, separate from this planet, that we have destroyed. If you think about the meaning of life for one second, you will see our meaning is to evolve and adapt the best, to keep life going constantly. We as humans have achieved this which makes us dominant force and more important then any animal. If you look at the price equation, you will see the reason we have empathy is to make more human, think like this we are less likely to kill other humans if we have empathy, and we will risk our lives to save others, to increase our numbers. Since we as humans are massively overpopulated, we will start losing this empathy.

Not only you did not answer my questions - and I'm waiting for you to answer them - , but all of the above is pointless. What's your point? Where do you want to go with it?

Superlol wrote:If you want veganism to sustain on the will of empathy for life, don't be racist and do it for all life ( plants included).

There needs to be a 'special kind of person' to not realise the difference between animals and plants.
If you really can't manage to think about any difference, here you go:
Sentience

Please, answer my previous questions and we can continue discussing.
If you just ignore others' questions, you'll get the same treatment.

Superlol wrote:First off, please use some common scence,

Woah, woah, woah, wait right there common scence? You mean common sense..? Please reference me the links to your very reliable resources I would love to have access and review.
Maybe you will learn a few things in school this up coming school year like, eating animals clogs human arteries and that blood flows through all vital organs like our brain so your claim that eating animals makes our brains smart is utterly false, you shouldn't trust wikipedia, your teachers will not accept a paper with wikipedia links as sources of info... Wiki is not a reliable source of info like you previous talked about having..
The way you talk about empathy is quite disturbing, you manipulate it's meaning to fit your obscured view on the world...
One thing you have to remember man, everything you say it totally in your opinion.

&&
IMO
Your opinion doesn't matter....

Your proven lack of intellect and lack of factual defense to your claims... IMO Strength's my claim..

PrincessPeach wrote:you shouldn't trust wikipedia, your teachers will not accept a paper with wikipedia links as sources of info... Wiki is not a reliable source of info like you previous talked about having..

Wikipedia is pretty reliable; it's just not a primary source (it's a secondary source, and changes over time, so it isn't very suitable for citation).
He didn't get any of his idiocy from Wikipedia; if he had read the Wikipedia article on this topic, all he would get is rudimentary knowledge about evolutionary sources of social altruism (although I doubt he's intelligent enough to understand the Wikipedia article on the subject, which is pretty high level).

The absurd conclusions he is drawing don't come from Wikipedia; Wikipedia deals in facts, not dogma.
He's trying to turn evolution into a religion -- something which none of the science supports, and which Darwin himself decried:

Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, wrote:The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind

"Evolutionary Morality" is neither Moral, nor is it legitimate Science. This has been well understood for over 140 years; a twelve year old thinks he has revolutionized both Ethics and our fundamental understanding of Evolution before he's ever taken a single class in either subject- amazing!

In the process of inventing his not-so-unique dogma (largely shared with Nazis and other Fascists of his kind), he's making as big an ideological leap as the Fascists did with regards to social Darwinism crudely from Natural Selection in WWII.

See this page for a brief summary: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

The Price Equation is important, but it says nothing about actual morality- it only explains some elements of evolutionary behavior, in a very general sense, and how they came about in a gene pool.
Evolution does not dictate purpose to life or behavior, it only explains the how of its coming about.


The Price Equation does not imply that we should only care about humans, or that we should eat meat, any more than Natural selection, and "Survival of the fittest", implies we should follow Social Darwinism, or kill all of the "impure" races and secure the world for Aryan domination,

None of these valid scientific principles suggest anything about what is moral, or dictate how we ought to behave.

Here we find nothing but a budding young Hitler, eager to tell people of the world what's right due to his certain dogmas and self-righteous zeal.
Like Hitler before him, he neither understands nor really accepts the legitimate implications of evolution beyond what he thinks suits his purpose.

This is all his posts boil down to:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
With a substantial helping of "doesn't even understand the nature he's appealing to".

There's not really anything more to it than that. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage or answer questions, he just wants to run his mouth and spout his irrational self-centered hate-filled dogma.

There's definitely something wrong with this kid, but it's not Wikipedia's doing

brimstoneSalad wrote:
There's definitely something wrong with this kid, but it's not Wikipedia's doing

Yes I agree.

He is stating that he has reliable resources yet the only references he links to is wiki, and that makes me question the reliability of his said sources even more. This is the conclusion I am trying to draw here.

I think we all need to know when & what is appropriate to reference from wiki....

PrincessPeach wrote: He is stating that he has reliable resources yet the only references he links to is wiki, and that makes me question the reliability of his said sources even more.

You need to follow his process... which is admittedly very difficult to follow.

Superlol wrote:I believe we have the right to do anything we want as long as it dosnt effect another human being. We our at the top of our food chain, and we our aloud to do anything as long as it dosnt put our survival at risk.

He didn't get that from Wikipedia. He pulled it out of his ear, based on misunderstandings of popsci.
It's completely idiotic.

He later said this:

Superlol wrote:First off, please use some common scence, we as humans did not achieve the top if the food chain. Food chain as defined by Wikipedia is (Food chain A food chain is a linear sequence of links in a food web starting from a species that are called producers in the web and ends at a species that is called decomposers species in the web. Wikipedia)

Who is he talking to? He's the one who said humans were at the top of the food chain. Nobody else said that as far as I can tell- Energy just asked what it had to do with anything.

Now he's contradicting his own idiocy, and using Wikipedia to do it.

Note: His quote from Wikipedia actually reduced the amount of idiocy in his post, and contradicted his former idiotic statement.

Although he followed it with more idiocy, none of that idiocy came from an informed reading of anything on Wikipedia.

PrincessPeach wrote:This is the conclusion I am trying to draw here.

But the only time he mentioned Wikipedia and quoted from it, it contradicted him.
That's my point

PrincessPeach wrote:I think we all need to know when & what is appropriate to reference from wiki....

For a forum, anything you like.
It's not definitive (you still have to see where it comes from), but it's perfectly fine to cite. And it can only contradict his arguments.
Wikipedia is not friendly to pseudoscience, or this kind of idiocy (the evolution = meaning of life crowd).
Wikipedia is pretty hard on actual science and peer reviewed evidence. I could list a number of Wikipedia articles that directly contradict what he's saying, and there's not one that supports his argument.

Which is why Conservatives, Neo-nazis, Fundamentalists, and Conspiracy theorists of all kinds aren't very fond of it.

You can't cite it for a research paper because it's not a primary source, just like you can't cite Wikipedia for writing an article for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia just restates things other sources (reliable sources) say.

You have to check the bottom, and use the sources Wikipedia used directly if you want to cite what Wikipedia says, because none of it came from Wikipedia originally (it's all from some other source).
"Original research" is not allowed on Wikipedia. Everything has to be cited.