Vegetarianism

[pahl]

So animals can be "above" each other between races but differences inside the race does not matter?

Why is that? Or rather what whould it take for a "intra-race" difference to matter? Does it never, if so why does it matter between races?

Because if you are not above any other human then clearly intelligence does not matter.

[Kamehameha34]

That's another reason for why vegetarianism is a subjective decision.

Look up subjective.

[pahl]

Yes, i know what subjective means.

But you still have not answered the question.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pahl So animals can be "above" each other between races but differences inside the race does not matter?

For humans, it doesn't matter.

Why is that? Or rather what whould it take for a "intra-race" difference to matter? Does it never, if so why does it matter between races?

It does for me, because that is my opinion. Subjective opinion. I have no problem with people acting on their own subjective opinion, but when they try to force it onto others, they overstep the line.

Because if you are not above any other human then clearly intelligence does not matter.

Not within humanity.

[pahl]

So your argument is basically: "because i think so".

Makes sense, i dont belive in God because i cannot find any evidence for a Gods existence. But then there are those who belive because they want to belive. I guess i can understand that.

[Kamehameha34]

Why not? It's a completely subjective argument, anyway.

He thinks that it is wrong to eat animals.

He does not eat animals.


I do not think it is wrong to eat animals.

I eat animals.


Everyone's happy. The only thing not satisfied, here, is his desire to tell me what I can and can not eat.

[pahl]

Sure, i think you should eat meat if you want to.

But i still dont know why you think humans are "above" other races, the only reason i got was: "because i think so". Thats the only thing missing, any reason would do really. Something like: "It makes my life easier" or "I dont know why, its like my brain has got a mind of its own!!" ( ).
"I think so" is not a valid argument.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't think we are scientifically superior to animals, which means we have just as much right to eat them as they do.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pahl Sure, i think you should eat meat if you want to. But i still dont know why you think humans are "above" other races, the only reason i got was: "because i think so". Thats the only thing missing, any reason would do really. Something like: "It makes my life easier" or "I dont know why, its like my brain has got a mind of its own!!" ( ). "I think so" is not a valid argument.

Fine.

Because we are the dominant race.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, my ancestors didn't crawl to the top of the food chain so I could eat carrots.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Exactly, my ancestors didn't crawl to the top of the food chain so I could eat carrots.

lol.

No, they didn`t, did they. They climbed to the top of the food chain so that THEY could eat something whenever the opportunity presented itself. They were opportunistic eaters.

BUT their descendents however did evolve to a high state of reason that codified law in order to lessen suffering. Their descendents slowly and surely widen the circle of compassion. Their descendents through knowledge learned that meat is not necessary for survival. Their descendents created a modern world where there are many more options than carrots in the plant world for consumption -- unless one is living in a carrot field.

As a caveat, white people didn`t build and climb to the top of the racial ladder to enslave the blacks so that they would have to go out and pick the cotton themselvs, did they?

Think!

[Kamehameha34]

As a caveat, white people didn`t build and climb to the top of the racial ladder to enslave the blacks so that they would have to go out and pick the cotton themselvs, did they?

Ooo, I can apply nonsensical comparisons between you and moral questionables, too!

You want equality.

Communist states also wanted equality for all of its citizens.

Stalin was a communist.

Stalin killed a lot of people.

Therefore, you have killed a lot of people.

:rolleyes:




Ok, back to the argument:

Let's say I butcher my own meat. In the harvesting process, I take careful measures to ensure that the animals feel no pain.

Why should I value the animals life over my consumption of its meat, even if I can sustain myself on plants? Why should it have "equal consideration of interests"?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I don't care what anyone "does", eliminating pain from the harvesting process eliminates all objectivity from your argument.

Why do you think meat production involves only the point of slaughtering?

Defend your point with reason; don't fall back on this appeal to authority fallacy.

Kamehameha, I never said nothing was true because Ghandi or MLK said it was. If I had, that would be an appeal to authority which rest on this reasoning:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

What I said, quoting myself is:

I will count myself sitting at the same table with Ghandi on that thought of what we value together, while you sit at another:

The operative word here is "value." Now, if in lieu of "value" it read "what he knows to be true and I therefore subsequently believe and concur with because he said it," then you would be right, it would be the fallacy you are screaming. As it is though, "value" and "truth" are not the same therefore you are off mark in your assertion.

It appears you are just averse to having quotes of respected persons shown to you which value things different from you. Quotes of famous and respected persons are often proffered in debate which often outline value and belief systems that one putting it forth agrees with. The truth of the argument, or at least mine, does not rest on what Ghandi said. It rests on reason, but I am always open to adding color to my arguments by sprinkling the words of respected persons in them.

It does nothing for your argument, no matter how much you equate me to a moral degenerate (yet another ad hominem fallacy).

I have done no such thing to you. I will equate degenerate thought and degenerate reasoning patterns to degenerate thoughts and reasoning patterns. You should be willing to seperate the personal from the processes of your arguments' prosecutions or defenses.

You equated me to a racist earlier.

Have not done so. Show me. I may equate your reasoning to the same reasoning which a racist may you, but targeting your reason is not the same as targeting your person. Like lawyers in a court of law, you need to be able to seperate your reasoning processes from your person. That is why you don`t see lawyers whining to the judge that the other attorney just called me a racist just because they are defending a racist in a trial, perhaps even using racist thought to do so.

Preceding that, you called me a "stupid meat eater with no reason", or the like.

Please don`t paraphrase me when alledging serious accusations. Post a quote from me so I can fairly address your accusation.

What if I continuously called you a communist in response to all of your points? It would, like your points, attack the debator and not the arguments, and I could fall back on "Don't take it personally".

I have not called you a "racist" or "stupid meat eater." I have analogised your reasoning with constructs.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Why do you think meat production involves only the point of slaughtering?

I am for the elimination of pain in the slaughtering process, and you are for elimination of the slaughtering process. I'm defending my point, not current conditions.

Kamehameha, I never said nothing was true because Ghandi or MLK said it was. If I had, that would be an appeal to authority which rest on this reasoning:

So your quote by Ghandi is irrelevant.

Glad to see your admission, let's move on.

The operative word here is "value." Now, if in lieu of "value" it read "what he knows to be true and I therefore subsequently believe and concur with because he said it," then you would be right, it would be the fallacy you are screaming. As it is though, "value" and "truth" are not the same therefore you are off mark in your assertion. It appears you are just averse to having quotes of respected persons shown to you which value things different from you. Quotes of famous and respected persons are often proffered in debate which often outline value and belief systems that one putting it forth agrees with. The truth of the argument, or at least mine, does not rest on what Ghandi said. It rests on reason, but I am always open to adding color to my arguments by sprinkling the words of respected persons in them.

Oh, excuse me, I thought you would only post things that are relevant to the fruition of the debate. My mistake. :rolleyes:

I have done no such thing to you. I will equate degenerate thought and degenerate reasoning patterns to degenerate thoughts and reasoning patterns. You should be willing to seperate the personal from the processes of your arguments' prosecutions or defenses.

It's ad hominem. "You share this belief in common with these people, which is wrong in that context." Where your equations break down is the fact that you think humans are equal to animals is subjective.

Have not done so. Show me. I may equate your reasoning to the same reasoning which a racist may you, but targeting your reason is not the same as targeting your person. Like lawyers in a court of law, you need to be able to seperate your reasoning processes from your person. That is why you don`t see lawyers whining to the judge that the other attorney just called me a racist just because they are defending a racist in a trial, perhaps even using racist thought to do so.

You equate 1+1 to x.
Therefore, you equate 2 to x.

Please don`t paraphrase me when alledging serious accusations. Post a quote from me so I can fairly address your accusation.

Just stop jumping to the most radical comparisons, and you should be fine.

I have not called you a "racist" or "stupid meat eater." I have analogised your reasoning with constructs.

You apply "my reasoning" to that of moral degenerates through insubstantial, tangential comparisons.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I am for the elimination of pain in the slaughtering process, and you are for elimination of the slaughtering process.

No, I am for vegetarianism and the elimination of meat production -- which entails the whole process from birth to packaging. You are not understanding this.

So your quote by Ghandi is irrelevant.

To you, yes. To me and perhaps others looking in on the debate "no." When some are undecided on an issue, often the opinion of a well respected person on the issue is enough to make them fall off the fence.

I am surprised you don`t understand this and the persuasive powers of words from respected persons.

StrongHeartsWin previously said: I have done no such thing to you. I will equate degenerate thought and degenerate reasoning patterns to degenerate thoughts and reasoning patterns. You should be willing to seperate the personal from the processes of your arguments' prosecutions or defenses.

It's ad hominem. "You share this belief in common with these people, which is wrong in that context."

To illustrate that "the beliefs you share in common with these people due to the same reasoning process which is being outlined" IS NOT an ad hominem. It is outlining through analogies your reasoning processes with history as a back drop.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin No, I am for vegetarianism and the elimination of meat production -- which entails the whole process from birth to packaging. You are not understanding this.

AKA "the slaughtering process"... Anything that positively effects the carrying out of the slaughtering, which includes production of animals to slaughter, is a part of the process.

To you, yes. To me and perhaps others looking in on the debate "no." When some are undecided on an issue, often the opinion of a well respected person on the issue is enough to make them fall off the fence I am surprised you don`t understand this and the persuasive powers of words from respected persons.

Would his words be any more or less valid if they were spoken by someone else?

No. The fact that he said them means nothing in a debate. Either admit that his quote is irrelevant, or you are appealing to authority. Don't feed me this BS about how you only "value" his opinion, then try to force it into the argument.

To illustrate that "the beliefs you share in common with these people due to the same reasoning process which is being outlined" IS NOT an ad hominem. It is outlining through analogies your reasoning processes with history as a back drop.

Racists believed that certain humans were, genetically, above others.

I believe that animals are below humans.

If you can somehow equate me to a racist, then you can also equate CEO's, the government, and any employer to racists. They pay certain people less, based on a generality. In this case, the work that they do, as opposed to skin color.

See the invalidity of your tangential claims?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Where your equations break down is the fact that you think humans are equal to animals is subjective.

It is my opinion that animals should have the same rights as humans, in as far as protecting them from exploitation and ownership. I am quite aware that animals do not have that right now. Rights are bestowed by man because rights are a man-made construct and therefore only he can extend rights to others for rights rest on the legal judicial and legislative powers of man for he governs.

What "is" does not "dictate" what can be in the future. Democracies allow for shifts on the spectrum of beliefs that cause new laws for protection to come about. Since I am an Animal Rightist I work for the process that will bring rights to animals -- just as Abolitionists worked for the process they hoped would bring protection and rights to blacks.

All laws begin with an opinion that something either should or should not be and then put forth by someone. When it is there opinion before becoming law, it is their subjective thought on the matter. Indeed, it remains a subjective thought even after becoming law for it an opinion is subjective regardless it being codified or not. There is nothing wrong with the word "subjective" and it decides nothing on what can become so.

Just stop jumping to the most radical comparisons, and you should be fine. You apply "my reasoning" to that of moral degenerates through insubstantial, tangential comparisons.

Comparisons have always been acceptable in debate to outline reasoning no matter how radical they are or embarrassing. Some people can`t seperate the examination of their reason from the content of their character. Do that, and then you are, or could become a better debator.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is my opinion that animals should have the same rights as humans, in as far as protecting them from exploitation and ownership. I am quite aware that animals do not have that right now. Rights are bestowed by man because rights are a man-made construct and therefore only he can extend rights to others for rights rest on the legal judicial and legislative powers of man for he governs. What "is" does not "dictate" what can be in the future. Democracies allow for shifts on the spectrum of beliefs that cause new laws for protection to come about. Since I am an Animal Rightist I work for the process that will bring rights to animals -- just as Abolitionists worked for the process they hoped would bring protection and rights to blacks. All laws begin with an opinion that something either should or should not be and then put forth by someone. When it is there opinion before becoming law, it is their subjective thought on the matter. Indeed, it remains a subjective thought even after becoming law for it an opinion is subjective regardless it being codified or not. There is nothing wrong with the word "subjective" and it decides nothing on what can become so.

So you are admitting that you want to legalize your subjective opinion, and impose it onto others.

Fine, it's my opinion that everyone should wear purple jumpsuits on sundays, tuesdays, and thursdays, and be completely nude on government holidays.

Comparisons have always been acceptable in debate to outline reasoning no matter how radical they are or embarrassing. Some people can`t seperate the examination of their reason from the content of their character. Do that, and then you are, or could become a better debator.

Then understand the fact that your claims being tangential dilutes their significance.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Would his words be any more or less valid if they were spoken by someone else?

Probably not. But, that is the power which one`s reputation has -- it adds power to the words. A person`s position and reputation adds power to their words and that affects people who hear them.

The fact that he said them means nothing in a debate.

If you think so, then you don`t care about what may or may not affect your audience. Haven`t you ever listened in on a debate where someone used a powerful quote from a respected person which made you ponder a little more on the point? I have.

I am concerned more about the audience than you -- so I will not acquiese to your protestations against quotes by famous people for I believe they are well placed and often well received when they are from respected persons. You believe otherwise. You stick to your style of not valuing them and not resorting to them, and I will stick to my style. Just ignore them if they rankle you. They are no breach in debating etiquette.

Either admit that his quote is irrelevant, or you are appealing to authority. Don't feed me this BS about how you only "value" his opinion, then try to force it into the argument.

Your request is denied and you still do not understand the operative word. Too bad for you.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Probably not. But, that is the power which one`s reputation has -- it adds power to the words. A person`s position and reputation adds power to their words and that affects people who hear them.

Thing is, I'm not debating the effectiveness of Ghandi's words.

If you think so, then you don`t care about what may or may not affect your audience. Haven`t you ever listened in on a debate where someone used a powerful quote from a respected person which made you ponder a little more on the point? I have. I am concerned more about the audience than you -- so I will not acquiese to your protestations against quotes by famous people for I believe they are well placed and often well received when they are from respected persons. You believe otherwise. You stick to your style of not valuing them and not resorting to them, and I will stick to my style. Just ignore them if they rankle you. They are no breach in debating etiquette.

If they aren't appeal to authority, and if they don't effect the argument, then they are irrelevant. I will be deleting anything referring to anyone who you view as an an authority on the subject, if it has to do with their subjective opinion.

Your request is denied and you still do not understand the operative word. Too bad for you.

Ok, then I'll tell you. It was irrelevant.



The quote was either

A) relevant to the argument or
B) irrelevant to the argument.

For it to be A, it would have to be appeal to authority, due to the fact that it is subjective. Since you said it is not appeal to authority, it must be B.