Skye Productions Servers' Common Arguments

These are abbreviated and hypothetical conversations mixed together to reveal the weakness of some common arguments I found on a carnist discord server, in short, so as not to waste the readers’ time with long quotes of conversations going in circles.

Scuds #1 - A loaded question assuming the risk of changing diet

Scuds: People don't know if they will get sick eating only plants, until they get sick, so why should we have to make ourselves sick rather than just not restricting ourselves from beneficial sources of food?

Theo: To be a fair question without any loaded assumptions it should read:

'When considering the options of staying on the same diet or changing to a vegan diet, people don’t know which one will lead to worse health consequences until after they get sick. So why would a person restrict themselves from beneficial sources of nutrition they usually use, and instead experiment with often a wider diversity of beneficial sources of nutrition than they otherwise would have when we’re not sure which one entails more overall risk of becoming sick?'

And my answer is simply because a person can remain agnostic about which option entails more risk overall and still desire to go vegan for other reasons like compassion for the animals.

Scuds: It's common sense going vegan will lead to worse health consequences. Would you stay agnostic about putting your hand in the fire because there's no scientific consensus on it causing pain?

Theo: For every common sense opinion which coincides with a correct material reality there is scientific basis, like extreme heat causing burns and pain. There exists no correct common sense reality or scientific consensus on the overall risk of changing diet.

I disagree that there's some clear line in the sand where for instance not eating 1 food you usually eat has no negative health consequences, but not eating all the animal products you usually eat and eating new foods you don't usually eat does entail more risk.

Scuds #2 - Arguing against a gray area ethical position as if it’s the core ethical principle

Theo: My core ethical principle is this; breeding animals into captivity to kill and eat them before they've even reached half the average lifespan their common wild ancestor species would have had is against my preferences, along with the burden on land use that could have been freed up for wildlife habitat and their lack of ability to express their capabilities as their common ancestor species have in the wild.

Scuds: IF you can't give me a reason as to why guide dogs are fine, but breeding backyard chickens to eat their eggs isn't, THEN you can't give me a reason as to why we should stop farming animals.

Theo: That’s dumb, you’re essentially saying; IF you can't give me a reason as to why X morally grey area action (which only weakly relates to the ethical principle) is ok, but Y morally grey area action isn't, THEN you can't give me a reason as to why we should stop doing Z morally black and white action (which strongly relates to the ethical principle).

Here’s a logical comparison to reveal the absurdity of the argument:

Ethical principle: Purposefully disregarding a persons consent when engaging in sexual contact is unethical.

Counter argument: IF you can't give me a reason as to why flicking women in the arm jokingly is ok (which only weakly relates to the ethical principle) is ok, but accidently flicking them in the arm too much isn't ok, THEN you can't give me a reason as to why people shouldn't rape women (which strongly relates to the ethical principle).

Assassin & Blinkers - Incorrectly claiming an argument is invalid

Assassin: Do you have a reason why I should restrict myself from objectively beneficial sources and our biological diet?

Theo: The likelihood that we can absorb all our nutrients from non-animal sources and be healthy whilst pursuing the character virtue of being compassionate to sentient beings where we don't need to kill them, cutting short their desires.

Would you prefer not to kill a human for food if you could easily access and eat plant food?

Would you prefer not to kill a non-human animal for food if you could easily access and eat plant food?

If you answered that you’re not ok with killing humans for food and you are ok with killing non-human animals for food, what trait is true of the animal that would let you feel justified in killing animals? And, if that became true of humans, would you then feel justified in killing humans if you could easily eat and had access to plant food in either scenario?

Assassin: Ridiculous hypothetical but I’d try human

Theo: Cool so you were presented an argument and had the formal validity explained to you earlier and you were proved absurd in relationship to most peoples preferences. I'll move on to the majority of people who don't have batshit insane preferences like you where you don't even care about human rights because you're not convincing anyone to follow your preferences. And just seek to lock you up if you ever farm humans.

Assassin: Not an argument.

--- A Comparison ---

Psychopath: Hypothetically do you have a reason why I should restrict myself from sources of fun - which myself and a number of other psychopaths are biologically predisposed to enjoy objectively - by killing homeless people and getting away with it scot free?

You can compare it to elements of killing productive people, but I'll just bite the bullet on that absurdity too.

Assassin: I don't care.

Psychopath: Cool, not an argument.

Reasonable person: If your objectively biological psychopathy is a disability which has hindered your developmental psychology, then you're missing out on meaningful happyness you could be persuing, please talk to a councilor.

Psychopath: Not an argument.

Reasonable person: That was objectively an if-then logical argument, to the extent I have concerns you will actually hurt people I will try to get you locked up, but I'll move onto helping more reasonable people now.

Theo: The comparison is obvious, a violent psychopath could claim not to have been given an argument because they remain unconvinced why they shouldn't be a violent psychopath, it doesn't make them right, and repeatedly pretending they haven't been given an argument is just dumb.

So when you claim you haven't heard a good answer that convinces you it's completely meaningless, as a psychopath could also not hear a good answer that convinces them. With some tiny minority of people, it's fine to not care about their beliefs.

Assassin: Do you know it’s a small number of people that would try human farmed meat for sure?

Theo: Laughable that I even have to explain to you that people have expressed a preference to move past the kind of chattel slavery that would be necessary for human farming, but yes, the social science history of societies fighting to exercise their preferences to first be free of chattel slavery, then feudal serfdom.

Blinkers: Appeal to history.

Theo: Encase you're not joking, yes historical case studies are useful, they're reflections on people's present values, how we've arrived here, and the likelihood people will desire to repeat the mistakes of history.

Skye & Forrest – Vegans should focus on harm reduction otherwise they’re complicit in harm

Forrest: Why do you not provide me with animal crop death purchase details?

I wish to be superior to you by eating some of the animals that are killed in crop deaths.

You refuse to give me contact details so you are a bystander to my diet.

Theo: Why do you not provide me with animal crop purchase details?

I wish to be superior to you by eating some of the perfectly edible and nutritious crops fed to animals that are the nearest to me, to reduce my land use and carbon footprint

You refuse to give me contact details to buy locally so you are a bystander to my diet.

The farmland around me is all just sheep fields and turnips for said sheep.

Your question is flawed because it wouldn't make you superior trying to reduce deaths at any age, I just advocate boycotting animal products at the point of distribution because I don't like domesticated animals being bred into captivity to be killed at a very young age by humans who could be doing something more meaningful with their lives.

Once we have enough people no longer desiring to support the breeding into captivity of animals just to end the desires of animals for taste/texture pleasure reasons, then we can get to see farmers taking extreme measures to reduce crop deaths and potentially form a boycott campaign around products without a symbol on the product saying they reduce crop deaths:

Anti-vegan identification of the main problem with our food production: Pesticide use, large monocrops & factory farming

Solution: Eat local free range.

Vegan identification of the main problem with our food production today: Domesticated animals being bred into captivity to be killed at a very young age by humans who could be doing something more meaningful with their lives.

Solution: Boycott animal products, so eating a diet that requires less land use, so maximizing the number of animals that get to seek fulfillment in wild habitat.

Vegan identification of the main problem in the future: Farmers shooting wild boar and killing baby birds in field nests with the harvester.

Solution: Subsidize and mandate some combination of these remedies and more to reduce the amount of crop deaths; 7 ft. high electric fences, moats, earth walls, thick hedges and artificial predator poo smell. And mandate tranquilizing, not shooting large mammals that are a pest problem.

Vegan identification of the main problem really far in the future: Pesticide use & large monocrops.

Solution: Eat local and ethically sourced as many low-impact vegans already do which you can find out through joining almost any food not bombs chapter or veg box scheme and noticing the high number of vegans.

Forrest: I do not see contact detail @Theo. I wish to receive contact detail for vegan murder business.

Theo: I don't see animal crop purchase details. I wish to ride on the coat tails of the on average bad animal agricutulture industry as if I'm making an interesting point.

Forrest: No. I wish to purchase vegan animal murder.

Theo: No. I wish to purchase animal crops.

Forrest: What?

Theo: I wish to purchase animal crops that are fed to animal locally so that I can reduce my carbon footprint and be superior to the average meat eater, so that I can imagine I'm making an interesting point.

Forrest: OK. You ask farmer for this and purchase low grade crop. I still wish to purchase vegan animal murder.

Theo: I don't see contact details.

Forrest: What is your zip code. I will find you local farm.

Theo: HS1 2AA

Forrest: I will make Google search.

Theo: Much appreciated, it's a very interesting point I'm making, I appreciate you following through.

[10 minutes later after serious googling on Forrest’s part]

The real point is I care that people boycott animal products, if you purchase meat you're not boycotting the sale of animal products, you're treating animal deaths as a commodity which you can put a price on to profit from, which is a character vice.

I'd be happy to help hook you up with forums of people who go out dumpster diving and cook up roadkill deer.

I don't desire to help you commit a character vice just because it's less bad than the meat you currently buy, you can go vegan and then not be treating animals as commidities and even grow all your own food in a greenhouse to be really ethical.

Skye: Unless it’s prepared for them and sold from a proper shop that has ways of checking meat isn't tainted, people won't care for it

Theo: The main purpose of advocating people go vegan is just to find people willing to live by solid principles who will be motivated to campaign to make things like fur farms illegal, so I don't see the merit in spending my time advocating people do something which is just less harmful.

Hypothetically if I asked you; can you tell me your address so I can come punch you in the face, if you don't I'll just try to kill you, do you think I've done a good thing by asking you for help, or do you think a good thing would just be not punching or killing you?

My preference would be no one sells the bodies of animals, human or non-human, why would I go out of my way to help you promote a social norm I don't like?

Forrest: Then you are complicit with my factory farming purchases.

Theo: Then you are complicit with me hypothetically killing you rather than just punching you.

I advocate the best solutions, and take less good remedies as a runner up prize.

Ranjul - Morality is just survival

Ranjul: Morality is made by humans for survival.

Theo: The average person holds preferences to uphold complex duties to each other and be a certain caliber of person with character virtues that have gone way past just being good to each other for our own survival. But either way it’s irrelevant, how good a person you are is precisely what you’d do when no one is looking, so hypothetically if you could hurt another person and get away with it, as in it wouldn’t impact on your survival at all, and you would, I would still judge you as being an awful person.

Here are five examples of ways someone could adopt the principle that got them to take on the action of boycotting animal products and what branch of philosophy it may be related to:

Hedonistic Utilitarianism: The principle of not breeding sentient life into the world where you know you will cause more suffering on a global calculus than happiness. Examples: climate change, stress and pain in slaughterhouse than longer happy life in wild with low rates of predation, stress to slaughterhouse workers who are more likely to abuse their family).

Preference Consequentialism: The principle of not breeding sentient life into the world to kill when you know they will have interests to go on living longer than would be profitable. Examples: They have habits for things they’d like to do each day and they show you by their desire not to be loaded onto scary trucks and to a slaughterhouse with screams and smells of death.

Virtue Ethics: The principle of not breeding a sentient life into captivity when you know you could leave room for other animals to enjoy happy flourishing being able to express all their capabilities in wild habitat. Not wanting to parasitically take away life with meaning for low-order pleasure in our hierarchy of needs which we can find elsewhere.

Deontology: The principle of everyone should only act in such a way that it would still be acceptable to them if it were to become universal law. So not breeding sentient life into existence, only to keep them confined, tear families apart and kill them later, as you wouldn’t want it to happen to you.

Existential Ethics: The principle that you should be wary of in-authentically acting in a way you don’t believe due to outside social pressures, like that acting un-caringly is necessary to what it means to be a man. So testing out values you were brought up with against new ones as you go and coming to the conclusion that you prefer a society where most have the value of seeing animals flourishing in nature and not in captivity/pain.