banditoloco

Non-vegans/vegetarians also eat vegetables, grains, fruits, and nuts, so overall, there is more possible varity for a non-vegetarian diet. However, this obviously does not make veganism immoral. To suggest that it is is pretty ridiculous, albeit, entertaining.

vixstile

sorry for the late reply.

You misinterpreted my post. They were losers because there veganism was insincere(among other attributes).

CuriosityKills

I can see your point. I never really thought that veganism was a trend. But now that I think about it, all the piercer/tattoo people I know were into veganism at one point. I knew a guy who desperately wanted to be part of that crowd (?) and became a vegan also. The only things he ate were perogies and veggie burgers.

I think you can tell a "trendy" vegan by what he eats. Serious vegans usually do a lot of heavy meal planning. A "trendy" vegan doesn't know what a Butternut squash is.

The AntiChris

DigitalChicken

Can you not see the irony here?

Earlier in this thread I asked you a hypothetical question which you refused to answer on the grounds that it was "something that I cannot coherently imagine". It seems to me that your hypothetical "animal products that weren't produced with suffering" is far less "coherently imaginable" than the simple question I asked you.

You've asked a group of people, vegans, who've taken the decision to pursue a lifestyle which avoids the use of animal products, whether they would use mythical animal products that "weren't produced with suffering" when there are plenty of alternative synthetic products available. The absurdity is that you seem to genuinely believe that you've revealed some kind of meaningful inconsistency when they answer "no thanks".

In what sense would it be "more honest" if this not what the vegan genuinely believes?

I'd be interested to know how you would construct a "well reasoned moral argument" that didn't depend to some extent on your personal subjective preference.

Chris

Agricola Senior

Not at all! We do not breed criminals to kill people, but you do breed animals for your food. These animals exist only to be consumed as meat.

The AntiChris

Feather

Are you really saying that it is "hypocritical/irrational" to avoid discomfort and pursue contentment?

I find the suffering caused by animal cruelty repugnant to such an extent that it causes me discomfort and emotional pain. It therefore seems to me to be perfectly rational to do whatever I can to reduce my discomfort. One way to achieve this is to persuade others to refrain from behaviours which aggravate my discomfort. If a majority of people within a society agree on what constitutes "unwanted" behaviour, this persuasion becomes coercion in the form of laws.

What's irrational about that?

Because I, like most people, have different levels of empathy for different classes of non-humans.

Chris

Valmorian

Not all animals that are eaten are bred specifically for that purpose. Furthermore, to assume animals wouldn't exist if we didn't purposefully breed them is silly at best.

*shrug* So blame the parents for the criminal then, hm? You want to blame the breeder of an animal for the death of the plants.


This whole discussion is silly anyway. Morality is subjective.

Valmorian

I know of very few vegetarians who object to the reproduction of animals. It is purely the killing of those animals for food they object to.

So blaming the breeder seems kind of strange, since that's not what they are objecting to.

tronvillain

Feather:
Presumably you would not argue that taste can be different for different things as well. Would you then also argue that using taste as a basis of decision making is irrational? That would imply that choosing to have apple pie rather than cherry pie at your birthday party simply because you prefer the taste of apple to cherry is irrational. If you would not, I am unsure as to why you would argue the point in the case of moral judgements.

Perhaps the problem is that we are defining "moral judgements" differently. I judge an act to be "wrong" if it bothers me sufficiently to overcome how much the use of coercion to prevent that act bothers me. Whatn would you suggest? Presumably you will be able to suggest an alternative definition, because if you accept that definition, you should have no problem with the role that empathy plays.

Exactly why is it not rational to empathize with one class of living things and not another? Why is the only valid criterion for feeling empathy for something be whether or not it is alive? Presumably you take the position that it is irrational to prefer apple pie to cherry pie as well, but that strikes me as anything but rational.

As far as I can tell life does not have any inherent value, but that does not preclude me valuing living things!


To sum up: if you are incapable of feeling empathy in varying degrees for various living things then I look down on you, just as Kip apparently looks down on me.

CuriosityKills

Have you been reading the posts on this forum?

My main reason for being a vegetarian is the fact that animals are bred under inhumane conditions, strictly because people like to eat meat.