ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th December 2018, 11:02 AM   #81
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not using air-conditioning would do more.
Possibly, but over my dead, charred body.

Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
But why not do both if it's viable.
I could've bet money that you would say that. I didn't say you shouldn't do both. I said that if you want to make a difference, you should do the other at a minimum. It was in response to your claim that veganism was the best way for individuals to help with climate change.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:02 AM   #82
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Sigh ... veganism and vegetarianism are both loaded words. No, of course I'm not calling for an impossible world. If it's the case that some exploitation is necessary for humans to survive or even the world to survive, then that is an unfortunate necessity.
You have missed my point entirely.

We need to use bees to fertilize crops, but we don't need to eat their honey. Eating their honey is completely optional. But it's also an option we can exercise without any negative impact on the environment. The arguments for or against eating honey have absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It's a purely moral question, the answer to which depends upon your moral axioms. Is it OK to "exploit" insects, or is it not OK to do so? There is no rational answer to that question, you either think it is or it isn't. You asked why we can't discuss veganism rationally, but we cannot do so because it's inherently a non-rational topic.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:05 AM   #83
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Indeed, animals farmed 'properly' enjoy the best quality of life of any creature on Earth aside from (some) domesticated pets.
I'm sure this is going to sound very odd to you, but I agree with you. I've been saying for a while that farm animals have it way better than wild ones.

Quote:
My major reservation is that they are killed young, which is not a cruelty issue, rather a purely ethical one.
Phew! At least we get to disagree again. Personally I don't see the difference: kill them young, or wait a while and then kill them.

Quote:
It's a sobering fact that practically all animals in the wild die in agony, whether from injury, disease, predation or starvation. Properly farmed, an animal can be spared all of this.
Damn, we agree again. Stop that.

Quote:
I must add, however, that there is still a lot of barbarism in the industry and this makes it difficult to source meat responsibly. This needs to be cracked down upon.
I said STOP IT.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:06 AM   #84
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have missed my point entirely.

We need to use bees to fertilize crops, but we don't need to eat their honey. Eating their honey is completely optional. But it's also an option we can exercise without any negative impact on the environment. The arguments for or against eating honey have absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It's a purely moral question, the answer to which depends upon your moral axioms. Is it OK to "exploit" insects, or is it not OK to do so? There is no rational answer to that question, you either think it is or it isn't. You asked why we can't discuss veganism rationally, but we cannot do so because it's inherently a non-rational topic.
As far as bees are concerned, we don't even kill them for food, so it's a much more benign exploitation to begin with.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:06 AM   #85
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm sure this is going to sound very odd to you, but I agree with you. I've been saying for a while that farm animals have it way better than wild ones.



Phew! At least we get to disagree again. Personally I don't see the difference: kill them young, or wait a while and then kill them.



Damn, we agree again. Stop that.



I said STOP IT.
Very perturbing. In subsequent posts we must call each other idiots and get back on track.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:11 AM   #86
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Very perturbing. In subsequent posts we must call each other idiots and get back on track.
It's a deal.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:12 AM   #87
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,199
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have missed my point entirely.

We need to use bees to fertilize crops, but we don't need to eat their honey. Eating their honey is completely optional. But it's also an option we can exercise without any negative impact on the environment. The arguments for or against eating honey have absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It's a purely moral question, the answer to which depends upon your moral axioms. Is it OK to "exploit" insects, or is it not OK to do so? There is no rational answer to that question, you either think it is or it isn't. You asked why we can't discuss veganism rationally, but we cannot do so because it's inherently a non-rational topic.
This is just wrong. It is in fact possible think about ethical questions rationally, and whether or not insects are subjects of moral consideration is something we can argue in favor of or against rationally, and not something you need take as axiomatic. Most obviously, we can identify the specific moral properties that make a someone out of something and then try to investigate whether insects have those properties.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 13th December 2018 at 11:14 AM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:12 AM   #88
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,994
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
But why not do both if it's viable. Certainly that would limit the effects even more? If we're already so far along, why not consider every avenue?

Cutting down on animal products could be just as important as reducing CO2 emissions, but the public awareness about the issue seems decades behind.
What if the converse were true? What position would you take if it were conclusively proven that meat-eating were beneficial to the environment and a wider-spread adoption of carnivorousness would correct climate change? Which principle would you sacrifice if they conflicted?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:40 AM   #89
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
This is just wrong. It is in fact possible think about ethical questions rationally, and whether or not insects are subjects of moral consideration is something we can argue in favor of or against rationally, and not something you need take as axiomatic. Most obviously, we can identify the specific moral properties that make a someone out of something and then try to investigate whether insects have those properties.
"Specific moral properties" are subjective criteria that arise from arbitrary moral axioms. Once you've agreed upon your axioms, and agreed upon the derived moral criteria from those axioms... Then at that point, yes, you can think rationally about keeping your moral system internally consistent.

But you can't think rationally about your axioms. Nor can you rationally promote your moral system over someone else's moral system. You can only argue about subjective values and non-rational choices of axioms.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:41 AM   #90
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
This is just wrong. It is in fact possible think about ethical questions rationally, and whether or not insects are subjects of moral consideration is something we can argue in favor of or against rationally, and not something you need take as axiomatic. Most obviously, we can identify the specific moral properties that make a someone out of something and then try to investigate whether insects have those properties.
Nope. All morality rests on axiomatic foundations, there is no possible alternative. If you agree on those axiomatic foundations, then it's possible to argue logically about what those axioms lead to, but it's still always an axiomatic foundation. And as a practical matter, most people's moral axioms aren't rigorous to begin with, and they aren't generally interested in such rigorous examinations either.

All of which further misses the point that whether or not it's OK to eat honey has nothing to do with the environment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:44 AM   #91
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
What prestige and Zig said.

Almost identically, in fact.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:52 AM   #92
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,199
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nope. All morality rests on axiomatic foundations, there is no possible alternative.
And? It doesn't follow from this that every moral position is axiomatic, nor that every person correctly arrives at a moral position through argument from first principles. You're making a mistake if you think the answer to "What is the moral status of insects" is "Well, that's just axiomatic." For essentially the same reason that you're making mistake if you say the same thing about gay marriage. No, these questions are argued (sometimes even rationally) in terms of more fundamental values and truths.

Quote:
All of which further misses the point that whether or not it's OK to eat honey has nothing to do with the environment.
I didn't miss that point, I just don't need to address it to point out that you're completely wrong about this.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:14 PM   #93
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,363
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Veganism is a hard sell for a lot of people. However, reducing the consumption of meat, while not being totally abstinent, is much easier.

Meat in every meal is a fairly modern phenomenon. In the past, and in many parts of the world today, vegetarianism is practiced because meat is an expensive luxury out of reach for many.

If the goal is climate harm reduction, perfect veganism is not required. Introducing vegetarian meals into the normal rotation could go a long way and be much easier than a radical diet shift. This doesn't really jive with the moral aspects of the vegan movement, but from a climate standpoint, less meat is less meat.
This!

I engage in a mostly plant based diet, if other people serve meat I may eat it.
But I won't purchase it or order it in a restaurant.

However I would not expect other people to change based upon my personal choices.

I once heard it stated that meat should be viewed as a condiment not the mainstay.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:17 PM   #94
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
And? It doesn't follow from this that every moral position is axiomatic
It follows that every moral position depends upon axioms. And in the case of veganism, it's axioms which are not widely shared.

Quote:
You're making a mistake if you think the answer to "What is the moral status of insects" is "Well, that's just axiomatic."
That's not a mistake, it's an observation. That's the way it is for most people, on both sides. Very few people bother digging deeper into what qualities an insect has that entitle it or don't entitle it to whatever moral consideration is under discussion. That it is possible to dig deeper doesn't mean that's what's mostly going on. It is not reasonable to demand people go any deeper than that, nor is there any reason to expect going deeper would produce any sort of agreement when deeper axioms are finally reached.

Quote:
I didn't miss that point, I just don't need to address it to point out that you're completely wrong about this.
No, I have it correct, you're confused about how people actually operate.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:19 PM   #95
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,363
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have missed my point entirely.

We need to use bees to fertilize crops, but we don't need to eat their honey. Eating their honey is completely optional. But it's also an option we can exercise without any negative impact on the environment. The arguments for or against eating honey have absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It's a purely moral question, the answer to which depends upon your moral axioms. Is it OK to "exploit" insects, or is it not OK to do so? There is no rational answer to that question, you either think it is or it isn't. You asked why we can't discuss veganism rationally, but we cannot do so because it's inherently a non-rational topic.
That is why I prefer to use the term mostly plant based diet to decribe my habits.

There are some vegans who are outstanding at annoying other people , some reduce their carbon foot print as well and do other sound things.

Some like to preach and be very annoying.

I see nothing wrong with honey myself.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:28 PM   #96
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by kayle View Post
this is such fun across various fora where there are supposedly critically thinking people. 99% get so insulted about taking meat away from them. It's like meat fogs everything else. I don't mind, but I would like one thing: them killing the pig/calf every week or so with their bare hands, ok, knife (dunno, a family could last with one pig a week, eating only chops)
This aligns with my observations. Challenge meat, challenge alcohol, and critical thinking goes out the window, no matter how many scientific studies are cited.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:34 PM   #97
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 288
I can't help but wonder if this is not actually an anti-carnivore diet slant or an anti-big production of meat slant (or however you might want to phrase that idea). What about the eating of wildlife? More specifically, what about deer? Left unchecked, the population of deer in the US would explode very quickly, leading to very negative consequences such as destruction of crops, more road deaths, and destruction of property.

However, responsible hunting leads to a number of good outcomes including, but not limited to, increased funding for wildlife agencies, lowered risks of crop and property destruction, lowered risks of deer being hit by vehicles and hurting, if not killing occupants, and finally, much higher amounts of food being made available at food banks nationwide. I know of many different organizations (such as Hunters for the Hungry and Hunters Sharing the Harvest) which donate foodstuffs to the population which puts meals on the tables of lower income families regularly. Is this not a win-win situation?

Simply switching to vegan or vegetarian diets would actually make this more of a problem than it is now.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:41 PM   #98
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by kayle View Post
this is such fun across various fora where there are supposedly critically thinking people. 99% get so insulted about taking meat away from them. It's like meat fogs everything else. I don't mind, but I would like one thing: them killing the pig/calf every week or so with their bare hands, ok, knife (dunno, a family could last with one pig a week, eating only chops)
My parents met at Dad's coming home party after wwii. Actually the day before, when they killed the hog. Mom dove right in to the task of cleaning out the casings to make sausage. So yeah, we eat meat. Cute fuzzy bunnies are good too. Fricasseed.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:44 PM   #99
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This aligns with my observations. Challenge meat, challenge alcohol, and critical thinking goes out the window, no matter how many scientific studies are cited.
You left out pot, porn, child raising, politics, religion....
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:50 PM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,223
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This aligns with my observations. Challenge meat, challenge alcohol, and critical thinking goes out the window, no matter how many scientific studies are cited.
The same can be said for people who are anti-meat, no?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:54 PM   #101
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,463
One day I hope skeptics realize playing the "I thought you/we were skeptics!" card isn't skeptical.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th December 2018 at 12:56 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:58 PM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
You left out pot, porn, child raising, politics, religion....
It's almost as if there's more to being human than pure logic and natural instinct. As if some questions of policy and social order aren't simply answered by rational debate alone.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:25 PM   #103
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
 
SusanB-M1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,569
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Sigh ... veganism and vegetarianism are both loaded words. No, of course I'm not calling for an impossible world. If it's the case that some exploitation is necessary for humans to survive or even the world to survive, then that is an unfortunate necessity. But I'd like to see such harm minimised as much as possible. Perfect veganism doesn't exist, but I consider myself vegan because I try to do the least harm possible and to exploit animals as little as possible, i.e. unless absolutely necessary.
You use the phrase 'exploit animals' and I would like to know exactly what you mean by that.

Looking at the overall picture of our Earth, the galaxy and possible events such as huge asteroid impact (yes, I know technology may well be able to detect such a thing and in the future technology may be able to provide equipment which will divert it)), but for enough humans to survive, there will have to be consumption of animals, as well as plants. Okay, I know this is extremely unlikely to happen before the end of my life, but I know whom I'd rather find myself in company with and that's a survival expert, not a vegan!! One of the bvooks my reader has read to me recently is 'Living With the Stars' by Karel and Iris Schrijver from which we both learnt all sorts of things a bout the make-up of our human cells that we didn't know before

Yes, I know too that this is not exactly the sort of discussion the OP was aiming at, but it is definitely the sort of thinking I have when it comes to the question of non-meat diet.
SusanB-M1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:37 PM   #104
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 View Post
veganism is only possible for those who can afford it.
Ignoring that this is true no matter what food stuff we slot in, if taken at face value...

The more I think about this the more dubious I become. Evidence?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:47 PM   #105
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,480
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have missed my point entirely.

We need to use bees to fertilize crops, but we don't need to eat their honey. Eating their honey is completely optional. But it's also an option we can exercise without any negative impact on the environment. The arguments for or against eating honey have absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It's a purely moral question, the answer to which depends upon your moral axioms. Is it OK to "exploit" insects, or is it not OK to do so? There is no rational answer to that question, you either think it is or it isn't. You asked why we can't discuss veganism rationally, but we cannot do so because it's inherently a non-rational topic.
Yeah, no. Morality extrapolates from rationality. We can, for example, reject a particular moral view on the grounds that it simultaneously maintains contradictory tenets. A defender of such a view would argue that the tenets are ambiguous and non-contradictory rather than declaring, "well, the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply." Moreover, in the real world, people share a lot of beliefs in common, so it's not necessary to return to first principles.

Instead this tact is taken in animal rights/veganism threads because, if almost anyone cares to follow the logic of their own morality, once all of the special pleading is stripped away, they'll be forced to conclude what we're doing to animals is wrong. As such they're reduced to armageddon style arguments: "Well, there's no such thing as morality." For examples of people trying to blow up the debate refer to... just about any thread on this forum regarding animal rights (see especially hundreds (literally) of posts by Belz...)

Curiously, armageddon gets invoked almost exclusively in animal rights threads. Erstwhile moral nihilists inject sanctimonious language into threads about murder and rape.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:58 PM   #106
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,875
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I think it needs to be dismissed, actually, until the rest of the tools are assessed and the correct one is being used. In any situation where Something Must Be Done, there is a tendency to latch onto the nearest Something and insist it Be Done, whether or not it makes sense. Veganism has been proposed as the solution to all of humanity's ills in turn, from overpopulation to cancer. In this case it may be a useful hammer, but what we need to be swinging is a shut-down-the-god-damned-coal-plants-already wrench.
Why just one?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:31 PM   #107
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Yeah, no. Morality extrapolates from rationality. We can, for example, reject a particular moral view on the grounds that it simultaneously maintains contradictory tenets. A defender of such a view would argue that the tenets are ambiguous and non-contradictory rather than declaring, "well, the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply." Moreover, in the real world, people share a lot of beliefs in common, so it's not necessary to return to first principles.

Instead this tact is taken in animal rights/veganism threads because, if almost anyone cares to follow the logic of their own morality, once all of the special pleading is stripped away, they'll be forced to conclude what we're doing to animals is wrong. As such they're reduced to armageddon style arguments: "Well, there's no such thing as morality." For examples of people trying to blow up the debate refer to... just about any thread on this forum regarding animal rights (see especially hundreds (literally) of posts by Belz...)

Curiously, armageddon gets invoked almost exclusively in animal rights threads. Erstwhile moral nihilists inject sanctimonious language into threads about murder and rape.
Pretty good rant! 7 out of 10 from me.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:40 PM   #108
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Yeah, no. Morality extrapolates from rationality. We can, for example, reject a particular moral view on the grounds that it simultaneously maintains contradictory tenets.
Even the preference for logical consistency is itself axiomatic. And no, morality does NOT extrapolate from rationality, because even the condition of logical consistency does not uniquely determine morality. It must have axioms. There is no alternative.

Quote:
Moreover, in the real world, people share a lot of beliefs in common, so it's not necessary to return to first principles.
Sure, there are a lot of common beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs are common. Veganism vs. meat eating is an example where the beliefs are not common.

Quote:
Instead this tact is taken in animal rights/veganism threads because, if almost anyone cares to follow the logic of their own morality, once all of the special pleading is stripped away, they'll be forced to conclude what we're doing to animals is wrong.
A different set of axioms than yours is not special pleading, and nobody is forced to agree with your set. The irony here is that you're actually engaging in special pleading yourself: labeling the axioms of others as inherently different than your own.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 13th December 2018 at 02:42 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:46 PM   #109
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,642
I think this thread is hitting on something that will stymie producing meaningful change. Now, Iím just going to accept the premise that eating a diet that minimizes meat will reduce our carbon footprint.

People enjoy our convenient modern lifestyle way too much to change. We havenít meaningfully reduced airplane and car usage. We havenít reduced A/C use. We still want cheap goods manufactured in destructive ways. And now we are talking about changing our delicious diets? We canít get people to change their diet when it is demonstrably causing them personal harm! I doubt, ďEat mostly plants so that we can save our environment,Ē is going to be an effective argument for mass change.

When it comes to mitigating climate change, the human race as a whole is hypocritical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:47 PM   #110
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Also, look around you. There's an obesity epidemic and many people are ridiculously unhealthy, while all the vegans I know look 10 years younger than they are (anecdotal, I know). My point is, health really isn't much of an argument when too much meat is literally killing people.
The vegans I know or have known have looked older and more sickly than other people. Of course we know there are vegan athletes so it's certainly possible to do it right. It seems to me that veganism is something you really have to take seriously in order to be healthy.

I know two vegans at the moment, very good friends of mine, and they are so skinny they won't even wear clothes that expose their legs out of embarrassment. She seems to be totally into the vegan thing and she is intelligent enough, but they both look disgusting.

Most fat people I know eat far too much junk food. Hard to attribute their weight to eating meat.

Funny, the couple I mentioned above love to talk about how healthy veganism is (well she does, my friend allows himself to be forced into it by his wife but he likes meat when she isn't looking). Meanwhile they drink alcohol every night, smoke pot, and one of them smokes cigarettes.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:54 PM   #111
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,609
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
The vegans I know or have known have looked older and more sickly than other people. Of course we know there are vegan athletes so it's certainly possible to do it right. It seems to me that veganism is something you really have to take seriously in order to be healthy.

I know two vegans at the moment, very good friends of mine, and they are so skinny they won't even wear clothes that expose their legs out of embarrassment. She seems to be totally into the vegan thing and she is intelligent enough, but they both look disgusting.

Most fat people I know eat far too much junk food. Hard to attribute their weight to eating meat.

Funny, the couple I mentioned above love to talk about how healthy veganism is (well she does, my friend allows himself to be forced into it by his wife but he likes meat when she isn't looking). Meanwhile they drink alcohol every night, smoke pot, and one of them smokes cigarettes.
We had a vegan in our corridor in first year Uni. Apparently he had been that way for some time. I always remember him as sallow and unimpressive and coincidentally, only yesterday, I found a group photo with him in it. If you didn't know you'd assume he was the father of one of my mates. He was only 23 and he looked like a chain-smoking 50 year old. If it weren't for the fact we used to sneak mince into his vegetative broths he probably wouldn't have made it to graduation.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:56 PM   #112
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
The vegans I know or have known have looked older and more sickly than other people. Of course we know there are vegan athletes so it's certainly possible to do it right. It seems to me that veganism is something you really have to take seriously in order to be healthy.
More to the point, vegans are a self-selected population. We should not expect that the properties of this sub-population matches that of the population as a whole. So for example, maybe vegans exercise more than the general population, or smoke less, or drink less, or... whatever. If they are healthier than the general population, is it because of their diet, because of their exercise, or any one (or more) of the other myriad factors which may separate them as a population? Even if we accept the proposition that they're healthier (not a given), that doesn't establish causation.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:28 PM   #113
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,480
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And no, morality does NOT extrapolate from rationality, because even the condition of logical consistency does not uniquely determine morality.
I would ask you to expand on this rather unlettered sentence, but I know better.

Quote:
Sure, there are a lot of common beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs are common. Veganism vs. meat eating is an example where the beliefs are not common.
The bolded sentence is a face-palm. It's like you're making an effort to miss the point. A meat-eater could believe -- in fact, most do -- that abusing animals for fun is morally wrong. Furthermore, she could believe it is wrong not just because the abuser will turn into a serial-killer, or some other nonsense, but because striking animals for pleasure is wrong. So we have a kind of inchoate moral principle at work: It's wrong to cause serious and avoidable animal suffering for pleasure. Now we can apply that principle to other domains and see if it is consistently applied, or if special pleading is invoked, "But I really like eating meat."

Quote:
A different set of axioms than yours is not special pleading, and nobody is forced to agree with your set.
You should try to read for comprehension before haplessly firing shots.

Quote:
The irony here is that you're actually engaging in special pleading yourself: labeling the axioms of others as inherently different than your own.
Ugh. You're clueless.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:38 PM   #114
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by wobs View Post
What about when the meat you want to buy has a lower carbon footprint than the fruit/veg you want to buy?
No solution is perfect, but that doesn't suggest that we should make the best the enemy of the good.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:45 PM   #115
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
My main arguments against veganism are that the food sucks, and the people who argue for it are moralizing jerks.

My main arguments against climate change denial are that climate change is clearly happening, and the people who argue against it are partisan hacks.
What's interesting there is that your arguments against veganism don't actually address the arguments for veganism, whereas your arguments against climate change denial do address the arguments for it.

If the food sucks and vegans are moralising jerks, it can still be true that the meat industry contributes to climate change, that domesticated animals are subjected to horrific conditions, or any of the other arguments for veganism. (I'm not supporting those arguments here, they may or may not be valid, I am pointing out that they are unrelated to whether or not the food sucks or the people making them are "moralising jerks").

If climate change is clearly happenening, it can't be true that it's not clearly happening.

So I don't really see the parallel that you are seeing.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:58 PM   #116
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So it IS about the morality of 'harming' animals by farming them, not anything to do with the environment. The latter is just a way to try to justify your way of life to others.
What's wrong with someone noticing that a choice they made for moral reasons is also the best choice for other reasons, and then pointing out those other reasons to others?

If those other reasons are valid, then others should also be convinced by them. If they aren't then the argument should center on why they aren't, and not on whether or not the first person has other motivations as well.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 06:02 PM   #117
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Veganism vs. meat eating is an example where the beliefs are not common.
That's the part that Cain is disputing.

If the common beliefs don't include beliefs which logically lead to veganism, then you are right that reason can't get you there. On the other hand, if Cain is right, they do.

I'm pretty sure he understands that, the issue is whether or not the beliefs that he says exist in the minds of meat eaters, which are inconsistent with the idea that eating meat is not immoral, are actually there.

They may not be. On the other hand they may exist and those people simply don't follow the logic to it's conclusion, or make invalid justifications to avoid cognitive dissonance.

The fact that they don't think that their moral views are inconsistent doesn't demonstrate that they aren't.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 06:04 PM   #118
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,658
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Possibly, but over my dead, charred body.



I could've bet money that you would say that. I didn't say you shouldn't do both. I said that if you want to make a difference, you should do the other at a minimum. It was in response to your claim that veganism was the best way for individuals to help with climate change.
You said "once you've done that, you can claim to have made a difference", implying that without doing that, one won't have made a difference.

But any difference, even a very small one, is a difference.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 06:10 PM   #119
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,995
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Yeah, no. Morality extrapolates from rationality. We can, for example, reject a particular moral view on the grounds that it simultaneously maintains contradictory tenets. A defender of such a view would argue that the tenets are ambiguous and non-contradictory rather than declaring, "well, the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply." Moreover, in the real world, people share a lot of beliefs in common, so it's not necessary to return to first principles.

Instead this tact is taken in animal rights/veganism threads because, if almost anyone cares to follow the logic of their own morality, once all of the special pleading is stripped away, they'll be forced to conclude what we're doing to animals is wrong. As such they're reduced to armageddon style arguments: "Well, there's no such thing as morality." For examples of people trying to blow up the debate refer to... just about any thread on this forum regarding animal rights (see especially hundreds (literally) of posts by Belz...)

Curiously, armageddon gets invoked almost exclusively in animal rights threads. Erstwhile moral nihilists inject sanctimonious language into threads about murder and rape.
This sums up my experience in this thread and similar ones.

The OP was even explicitly about how people reach for tangential reasons to dismiss a simple, empirically verifiable fact about diet composition and environmental effects, and things still go straight to nonsense.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:18 PM   #120
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,490
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
What's interesting there is that your arguments against veganism don't actually address the arguments for veganism, whereas your arguments against climate change denial do address the arguments for it.

If the food sucks and vegans are moralising jerks, it can still be true that the meat industry contributes to climate change, that domesticated animals are subjected to horrific conditions, or any of the other arguments for veganism. (I'm not supporting those arguments here, they may or may not be valid, I am pointing out that they are unrelated to whether or not the food sucks or the people making them are "moralising jerks").

If climate change is clearly happenening, it can't be true that it's not clearly happening.

So I don't really see the parallel that you are seeing.
Yeah, I realized at some point that I had my quadruple negatives twisted about, but the larger point I was making (hitching your niche cause onto the coattails of an important one) was still valid, so I figured, meh.

If you'd like an un-negated comparison, I threw in my main argument against climate change alarmists in a later post: that the solutions suck. People tend to waste their time with ineffectual but close-at-hand answers instead of trying to understand the problem and taking the most effective steps to resolve it. Which, now that I mention it, people tend to be moralizing jerks there as well, since it's always something they're already doing and they want everyone else to do it too.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.