*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2775
    • View Profile
Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 08, 2021, 02:11:46 PM »
"It is meat eaters – not vegans – who are the preachy ones | The Independent" https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/vegan-meat-veganism-stigma-principles-b1913217.html?amp

I mean, you might think a journalist trying to make a point about others being preachy might minimize her own level of preachiness in order to avoid undermining her own point, but not this one. This woman just can't help but pepper her article about the preachiness of non-vegans with constant reminders that meat is murder and eating meat is evil (or immoral, at the very least).

She points out that many more people say they care about animals, yet a very small percentage of them actually avoid meat, suggesting that all those people who say they care about animals but still eat meat must be doing so because society pressures them. It's much more nuanced than that.

I care about animal welfare. I think something needs to be done about the deplorable conditions animals kept for meat currently suffer through.

At the same time, I love eating meat, and have no plans to ever stop eating meat, and I feel no shame about either.

The argument that we should stop eating meat altogether if we love animals is nonsensical. We don't need to undo millions of years of evolution to demonstrate that we care about animals.

To put it in perspective: Is it immoral to feed mice to snakes, or worms to fish? We would consider it immoral to try to force a vegetarian diet on a naturally carnivorous animal. Why isn't it immoral for snakes to eat mice?

The law of the jungle. Some animals naturally eat other animals. And humans are among them.

So if you want to be a vegan, and are willing to not be preachy about it (this journalist clearly isn't, despite the holier-than-thou attitude of her premise), go for it. Modern society actually makes it easier than ever to do so; nowadays you can even buy disgusting, super-processed plant-based food and pretend you're eating a real hamburger! But don't try to equate eating meat with hating animals, or even caving to society's pressure to eat meat. You are making an extremely nuanced issue straight black and white by doing so.

And if you're gonna call out others for being preachy... ehh... maybe think about minimizing your own preachiness while doing so. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite, like this journalist!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2021, 02:18:30 PM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2021, 03:40:19 PM »
I know a fairly preachy vegan. She's not too bad, but she doesn't believe what she says she does.
She put something on FB which I responded to and during the conversation she said that she thought human and animal life had equal value.
Which is bullshit. No-one thinks that.
So I asked her if a house was burning down and a child and pet were in the house who would she ask the firemen to rescue first and she dodged the question. Because of course she did. Obviously she values the human life greater than the animal. Everyone does.
Which isn't to say that farming techniques don't cause animals to suffer unnecessarily because they do. And I don't think they should.
But...sausages and burgers are bloody lovely. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite but at least I own up to it.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2021, 05:48:23 PM »
She put something on FB which I responded to and during the conversation she said that she thought human and animal life had equal value.
Which is bullshit. No-one thinks that.
So I asked her if a house was burning down and a child and pet were in the house who would she ask the firemen to rescue first and she dodged the question. Because of course she did. Obviously she values the human life greater than the animal. Everyone does.
Your logic doesn't quite follow. The fact that a person may have a preference towards saving a child over saving a pet does not mean that one is intrinsically more valuable than the other. This remains the case even if most or all people shared that preference. People make terrible value judgements all the time.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2021, 06:18:03 PM »
You surely save the thing which you perceive to be of most value, if you can only choose to save one thing.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8093
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2021, 08:18:20 PM »
I care about animal welfare. I think something needs to be done about the deplorable conditions animals kept for meat currently suffer through.

At the same time, I love eating meat, and have no plans to ever stop eating meat, and I feel no shame about either.

The argument that we should stop eating meat altogether if we love animals is nonsensical. We don't need to undo millions of years of evolution to demonstrate that we care about animals.
I would go further than this and say that the best way to improve livestock conditions isn't to stop eating meat, but to support meat suppliers who treat their animals well. If everyone who cares about animal welfare gives up meat, then the only people buying meat are those who don't care, and they will just buy whatever is cheapest.

So if animal welfare is the goal, being vegan is actually counterproductive. Of course, there are other potentially valid reasons to be vegan.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2021, 08:55:39 PM »
You surely save the thing which you perceive to be of most value, if you can only choose to save one thing.
Of course, but that's where your logic falls apart. The valuation process doesn't just consider the value of the being's life, but also other innumerable factors.

Would I choose to save you or my mother? I'd choose my mother, she's kinda cool and you've irked me every now and then. Does that mean that I consider your life less valuable than that of my mum? Absolutely not - both your lives are "sacred" (for lack of a better word). There are simply other factors at play which guide my decision.

And, for a more extreme example: would you rather save Thork or a cute kitten?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2021, 09:24:26 PM »
This is why in my hypothetical I made a point of not saying "would you save your child" (she has one, handily) or a family pet.
I specifically said a child or an animal.
She didn't answer. Because we all know the answer.
She'd choose the child. Because at some level she knows that human life is more valuable than animal life.

PS: The kitten, obvs.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2021, 11:16:54 PM »
I specifically said a child or an animal.
This changes nothing. As I said, the factors here are innumerable. The fact that you tried to prevent a tiny subset of them doesn't make your logic any less flawed; at best, it introduces an element of "gotcha"-ism. You have to ask yourself whether your interest was to establish the truth, or whether it was to t0tally pwn the veggies with FAX and LOGICKS. Or, in other words, epistemology vs rhetoric.

She didn't answer. Because we all know the answer.
She'd choose the child.
This continues to be true, and restating it won't strengthen your argument. We agree on this part.

Because at some level she knows that human life is more valuable than animal life.
This continues to be nonsense for the reasons outlined above, and restating it won't strengthen your argument.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6541
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2021, 06:07:26 AM »
Species bias.
We all do it.  Most animals probably do it too.  Value is not really the best word because two objects of equal value but you can only have one... Doesn't mean you get both anyway or choose neither.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2021, 07:37:37 AM »
I specifically said a child or an animal.
This changes nothing. As I said, the factors here are innumerable.
The only other "factor" you have mentioned is the fact you apparently like your mum more than me :(
The only thing innumerable here is the number of times you'll argue the toss about something when you basically agree with me.

Quote
You have to ask yourself whether your interest was to establish the truth, or whether it was to t0tally pwn the veggies with FAX and LOGICKS.
My interest was to test her assertion that she values human and animal life equally.
My thought experiment is a riff on a common one - there's a fire in the middle of the night, you can escape and save one thing from your house, what do you choose?
The entire intent of that experiment it to get someone to think about what thing - it's usually an object - they value most.
My variation of that was to test her assertion that she values human and animal life equally. Which is why I didn't specify which human or animal it was. That eliminates the factors of what you feel about that specific person or how cute you deem that species to be. An arbitrary animal and an arbitrary human. Which do you choose?
The fact she dodged the question is telling. She could have gone into a spiel about "factors" I guess, but she didn't. Because we both know which she would choose and why.

IF she is a vegan because she thinks animal cruelty is a bad thing and we should be kinder to other species then great, I agree with her. I eat meat because it's lovely and I slightly hypocritically overlook the farming practices which allow me to do so. And because God said we could, if you want to go down that road. Or to take a secular view, we are evolved to eat meat. So I think there are good arguments to eat meat. And I think there are good arguments to not do so because of the way we get meat which indisputably causes animals unnecessary suffering.
Just don't give me this guff about how you value animal and human life equally. Because you don't.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2021, 08:24:25 AM »
Value is not really the best word because two objects of equal value but you can only have one... Doesn't mean you get both anyway or choose neither.
Ding ding ding!

She could have gone into a spiel about "factors" I guess, but she didn't. Because we both know which she would choose and why.
This is why I asked whether you were motivated by epistemology or rhetoric. You decided to mansplain some lady's morality to her. She either gave up on trying to reason with you, fell for the same logical trap as you, or maybe you're just a persuasive speaker. None of that makes you right - it just means you "won" (ick) the argument.

The only other "factor" you have mentioned is the fact you apparently like your mum more than me :(
Indeed, I only mentioned one, because that already resolves my decision. Would you prefer a pointlessly longer list?

The only thing innumerable here is the number of times you'll argue the toss about something when you basically agree with me.
I don't agree with you at all, the core premise of your argument is complete nonsense, and the half-truths you used to try and substantiate it are irrelevant - you are trying to make an "obvious", "common sense" argument, but the conclusions you draw from it are bunk.

My thought experiment is a riff on a common one - there's a fire in the middle of the night, you can escape and save one thing from your house, what do you choose?
I really don't think you need to explain yourself. I understood you, it just so happens that you're wrong.

Let's try another example and see if it clicks. Let's go with a scenario in which the valuation has already been done for us, and use that to illustrate the fact that other factors prevail:

You have £5 on you, and all your other payment methods are literally frozen - you left them at home, in the freezer. You're feeling a bit hungry. For some reason, you decide to walk into Pete's Wacky Store of Mystery and Mischief - a mistake that will soon cost you dearly. Two products are offerred to you:
  • A reasonably nice pizza, with a surprisingly sensible combination of ingredients you like.
  • A bucket of nails.
Each of these products has been valued at exactly £5 (how convenient!), and the price doesn't strike you as particularly unreasonable - it's an ok-sized personal pizza, and the bucket of nails is appropriately nice and large to possibly cost that. You have to choose one item - which will it be?

Now, your answer to this question doesn't really matter - you might choose the pizza because you're hungry and don't have immediate uses for a huge bucket of nails, or you might choose the bucket of nails because you're a crazed DIY fanatic, or because you want to make a point. The important element here is that, regardless of the items having equal value, you most likely found it very easy to choose your preferred product. It wasn't a roll of the dice, and you didn't need much time to think about it, either. Imagine how mind-bogglingly stupid it would be if some monocle-and-fedora-clad chap waltzed in and shouted "AHA! This clearly means you consider [pizza] more valuable than [nails]!" It just doesn't hold - the value of the objects is roughly the same, and that's not what guides your decision.

My variation of that was to test her assertion that she values human and animal life equally. Which is why I didn't specify which human or animal it was. That eliminates the factors of what you feel about that specific person or how cute you deem that species to be. An arbitrary animal and an arbitrary human. Which do you choose?
Honestly, I might choose the animal. Fuck humans. They're all coarse, and rough, and irritating, and they get everywhere.

Just don't give me this guff about how you value animal and human life equally. Because you don't.
Well, I do, and it's perfectly consistent with me being able to make a choice in your discount rehash of the trolley problem. It's also perfectly consistent with me not being vegan. Those choices are just unrelated to my assesment of their value.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 08:52:49 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2021, 09:29:25 AM »
You decided to mansplain some lady's morality to her.
No. I asked her a simple question to get her to think about whether her morality is really what she claims.
(Although she is also a feminist so would enjoy your use of the word "mansplain")

Quote
Would you prefer a pointlessly longer list?
No, but some other examples would be good. Your ones so far are not relevant to my thought experiment.
You gave one example of your particular attachment to one human over another.
I'm still a little hurt you like your mum more than me, but you're comparing two humans who you know which is a completely different thought experiment. The fact you know who the two humans are is a factor in your decision. If it's two strangers who you know nothing about then I'd suggest it's flip a coin (assuming the two people are equally easy to save). I wouldn't value any one human life over another if I knew nothing else about the two humans.
And your other example invokes the fact that kittens are cute and Thork is not. But, again, that's a different thought experiment.
I am talking about an arbitrary animal vs an arbitrary human. Which life is more valuable?

Maybe valuable is the wrong word - your example about pizzas and nails is a false equivalence for 2 reasons. Firstly you are talking about monetary value, I am not. Secondly you are creating a scenario in which a big factor is your decision is your immediate need - you set up the thought that I'm hungry. So yeah, I'll pick the pizza. If I'd just had a big meal and had some DIY to finish then I'd pick the nails. My needs are clearly a big factor in my decision. That is not the case in my thought experiment either.

So yeah, you change the thought experiment then the decision becomes different.

Quote
Honestly, I might choose the animal. Fuck humans. They're all coarse, and rough, and irritating, and they get everywhere.
A fairly reasonable position, to be fair.
But, in real life, that is not a common view. Cannibalism is frowned upon, eating meat is not.
Killing humans is illegal, killing animals...well, I think you can be done for animal cruelty, but you're not going to be in prison for as long, it at all, for killing a cute kitten than if you killed Thork. The law is an ass. But the reason is that in law animals and humans are not thought to be equivalent. Because, in general, most people don't regard human and animal life as equivalent.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2021, 09:49:14 AM »
I am talking about an arbitrary animal vs an arbitrary human. Which life is more valuable?
I can either call this question unanswerable or say "neither".

Firstly you are talking about monetary value, I am not.
Yes, you are talking about value as a more abstract concept. Monetary value is a convenient device for it, because it eliminates the valuation process from the example and allows you to focus on other factors. As evidenced in the rest of your response, this was successful.

Secondly you are creating a scenario in which a big factor is your decision is your immediate need - you set up the thought that I'm hungry. So yeah, I'll pick the pizza. If I'd just had a big meal and had some DIY to finish then I'd pick the nails.
As I just finished saying, your actual answer doesn't matter - merely the factors which are entirely external to the items' respective values, and the fact that you found the decision easy despite the values being equal.

My needs are clearly a big factor in my decision.
Congratulations - you stated my point, except you're acting as if it was some grand objection.

That is not the case in my thought experiment either.
How do you know what factors do and do not come into your friend's decision process? It sounds to me like your analysis lacked nuance, and that you would choose the human because you value them more. How do you go from that to asserting that this is a common belief? Or to declaring that your friend must believe the same? The word "mansplaining" is becoming more and more relevant here.

But, in real life, that is not a common view. Cannibalism is frowned upon, eating meat is not.
Killing humans is illegal, killing animals...well, I think you can be done for animal cruelty, but you're not going to be in prison for as long, it at all, for killing a cute kitten than if you killed Thork. The law is an ass.
You're right up until this point. Our society is dominated by humans (duh), and those who create laws usually create them in their own interest. This is also why the law overwhelmingly favours the wealthy and powerful, pretty much across all nations. Does that mean that lives of the rich are inherently more valuable than those of the poor? Personally, I'd say "no, of course not". As with your previous attempts, the human decision-making process is not intrinsically linked to the perception of value. A decision factor which better explains the discrepancy is trivial to find.

But the reason is that in law animals and humans are not thought to be equivalent. Because, in general, most people don't regard human and animal life as equivalent.
You have yet to demonstrate that link. So far, you pointed out that humans are biased towards protecting other humans. You then make a massive unexplained leap to say "ergo, human life is more valuable".
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 09:52:31 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2021, 10:19:17 AM »
I am talking about an arbitrary animal vs an arbitrary human. Which life is more valuable?
I can either call this question unanswerable or say "neither".
OK, fine. So maybe you really do regard human and animal life as equivalent in value then. I don't, I'd save the human.
My assertion is that most people would do the same.

Quote
My needs are clearly a big factor in my decision.
Congratulations - you stated my point, except you're acting as if it was some grand objection.
The objection is you are creating a different scenario where need is a factor. In my scenario it is not.

Quote
How do you know what factors do and do not come into your friend's decision process?
I don't, because she declined to answer.

Quote
It sounds to me like your analysis lacked nuance, and that you would choose the human because you value them more.
Yes.

Quote
How do you go from that to asserting that this is a common belief?
Because we (mostly) eat meat and wear leather and eat eggs and keep animals as pets.
Geronimo the alpaca was famously (why the hell is this headline news?!) put down recently because of the perceived threat of him spreading Bovine TB or something. We don't "put down" humans. Dignitas is now a thing but even then it has to be clear that it's the person's choice and it's still highly controversial. Because most people regard human and animal life differently.
Just generally pretty much everyone has a hierarchy of value they place on different species, with us at the top. Ants are a nuisance and I will happily kill them. Spiders I will generally release in to the wild if I can. We had mice in our place one time and while I wanted them gone I would have been deeply squeamish about dealing with them myself. I don't go out of my way to kill other creatures (apart from ants - seriously, fuck those guys), but if it's an animal vs a child then it's really no contest in terms of who I'd save.

Quote
Or to declaring that your friend must believe the same?
She declined to answer my question, I am inferring from that non-response that at some level she believes the same.
I'd be interested to explore the topic more with her if she wanted to at some point.

Quote
Our society is dominated by humans (duh), and those who create laws usually create them in their own interest. This is also why the law overwhelmingly favours the wealthy and powerful, pretty much across all nations.
Is that true about the wealthy and powerful? Aren't they subject to the same laws? They might be able to afford better lawyers to get around them.
A factor here is that in the West at least our laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview. And in that we are given "dominion" over the animals and told we can eat them.
Which is a factor in my belief that human life is more valuable than animal life.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2021, 10:47:45 AM »
OK, fine. So maybe you really do regard human and animal life as equivalent in value then. I don't, I'd save the human.
My assertion is that most people would do the same.
My assertion is that many, if not most, people would save the human despite viewing the two lives as equally valuable. You propose that this is a contradiction. I'm currently explaining to you why it isn't. You restating the parts you managed not to get wrong is just gonna have us running in circles.

The objection is you are creating a different scenario where need is a factor. In my scenario it is not.
Once again - the actual factor doesn't matter. The existence of it is what does. It is possible, and indeed likely, to devise a situation in which two things have the same value, and yet one is reliably chosen.

I don't, because she declined to answer.
Rightly so, judging by how resistant you are to any thinking other than "AATW right because obviously duuuuh". She probably knew how you'd react and chose to spare herself the experience.

We don't "put down" humans.
Many societies still kill humans they perceive as a threat to society at large, and most did until relatively recently.

Dignitas is now a thing but even then it has to be clear that it's the person's choice and it's still highly controversial. Because most people regard human and animal life differently.
The reasons Dignitas is controversial are extremely well-documented, and you haven't read them. One of the obvious ones is the fear of unscrupulous people pressuring the elderly and vulnerable into committing suicide. In other words, the controversy mostly surrounds the concept of consent, and not the value of life. You'd know that if you had any interest in the truth of the matter, but you're just looking for arguments to make yourself right.

Just generally pretty much everyone has a hierarchy of value they place on different species, with us at the top.
You have yet to demonstrate that.

She declined to answer my question, I am inferring from that non-response that at some level she believes the same.
A simpler alternative exists. She knew what your argument would go like (as did I when I started it, but I find this shit entertaining; I suspect I'm in the minority there) and most likely wanted to spare herself the headache of someone restating the same non-point over and over while ignoring all arguments against his pre-conceived conclusion.

Also, interestingly: I just told you that I view the question as unanswerable, and you inferred something else entirely from it.

Is that true about the wealthy and powerful? Aren't they subject to the same laws?
*giggle*

If you read the news, you won't go a day without reading several stories about the wealthy/powerful egregiously ignoring laws and sufferring little to no consequences.

A factor here is that in the West at least our laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Yes, the same worldview that had us "putting down" humans until quite recently. A system designed around controlling uneducated masses by kings, "nobles", and the clergy, which eventually managed to evolve out of some of its most egregious ugliness. It's also why we're rapidly moving away from Christians dominating the West - just look at the numbers among young people. This process is still ongoing - that's why the death penalty is now controversial, and why we're discussing things like assisted suicide and animal welfare. The world will continue to change - whether you choose to join it is up to you, but that will require opening your mind a little bit.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 10:53:40 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2021, 01:13:36 PM »
My assertion is that many, if not most, people would save the human despite viewing the two lives as equally valuable. You propose that this is a contradiction. I'm currently explaining to you why it isn't.
Yes, but your mansplanation involves changing my thought experiment to one where other factors exist.
Choose between your mum or someone who irritates you.
Choose between someone terrible (he is) and a cute kitten.
You could do that endlessly. Do you save a child or an elderly person who has had a long and rich life?
Do you save Jimmy Saville or Lassie?
Do you save an ant or a dog?

My thought experiment was deliberately intended to strip away all that and get my friend to think about whether they really view human and animal life as equivalent.

Quote
It is possible, and indeed likely, to devise a situation in which two things have the same value, and yet one is reliably chosen.
Yes. But as I've said you were talking about monetary value, which is a fairly reasonable approximation for value of objects, I guess. Valuation of life is more abstract. And you deliberately set up the situation where my need for one of those things was greater than the other. Again, I want to strip away all that.

Quote
Many societies still kill humans they perceive as a threat to society at large, and most did until relatively recently.
In very extreme circumstances and after a due process. We don't just put them down because they're ill or kill them because we want to eat them.

Quote
The reasons Dignitas is controversial are extremely well-documented, and you haven't read them. One of the obvious ones is the fear of unscrupulous people pressuring the elderly and vulnerable into committing suicide. In other words, the controversy mostly surrounds the concept of consent, and not the value of life.
There is something in that, but the value of human life is a factor too. There's debate about whether someone should have the right to even decide this. Probably because of us being a Christian country back in the day, I'm pretty sure suicide was illegal at one point because the view was that human life was sacred and shouldn't be extinguished, even by your own hand.
Because we are no longer a Christian country in any meaningful sense the attitudes are changing about whether we should have the right to decide this (I can see arguments both ways, this is another one of those subjects which people on both sides pretend is simple when I actually think it's really complex)

Quote
Just generally pretty much everyone has a hierarchy of value they place on different species, with us at the top.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
I don't know how to "demonstrate" it. Can you demonstrate that most people view human and animal life of equal value as you have asserted?
I infer my view from my experience of life. As I said, I'll kill ants with impunity. Bastard things. "Higher" life forms I would be less willing to kill even if they were pests who I didn't want in my house. I'm talking there about my attitudes. But while his is not a topic I discuss regularly with people, I've not done a survey, I don't remember anyone calling me a monster for killing ants. I do see people who are cruel to dogs or cats vilified - remember that cat bin lady. Sheesh, she didn't even really hurt the cat but that was headline news. I Googled it and she was fined £250, had she assaulted a human she would have been charged with a more serious offence.
There are certain Buddhist monks who I think believe that all life is equivalent and don't kill ants, outside of that most people don't regard all life as equivalent.

EDIT: Found this:
https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/children-value-100-dogs-more-than-one-human-adults-value-1-human-more-than-100-dogs-suggesting-our-speciesism-is-learned/

Quote
I suspect I'm in the minority there) and most likely wanted to spare herself the headache of someone restating the same non-point over and over while ignoring all arguments against his pre-conceived conclusion.
I'm not ignoring you, I wouldn't have ignored her. I've responded to your points

Quote
Also, interestingly: I just told you that I view the question as unanswerable, and you inferred something else entirely from it.
I took that to mean you couldn't choose. You have stated you view animal and human life as equivalent. I took that answer as an affirmation of that. If I'm misunderstood then you're free to clarify.

Quote
If you read the news, you won't go a day without reading several stories about the wealthy/powerful egregiously ignoring laws and sufferring little to no consequences.
They may be more immune to the consequences because of their wealth and power, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to the same laws.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 01:23:54 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2021, 01:38:57 PM »
Yes, but your mansplanation involves changing my thought experiment to one where other factors exist.
Other factors always exist - they must, by definition, for a person who believes that human and animal lives are of equal value. The change wasn't there for you to whinge about, but to offer you an example in which this is easier to see, since you found your own example unintuitive.

My thought experiment was deliberately intended to strip away all that and get my friend to think about whether they really view human and animal life as equivalent.
And it failed spectacularly to achieve that. It introduced needless ambiguity, did not control for external factors, and you chose to interpret the lack of a response as a result you've found convenient.

Again, I want to strip away all that.
Then you have a lot of work before you're remotely close to achieving that. "An arbitrary person/animal" does not eliminate these factors - it just leaves the reader to fill in the gaps with their own guesses. You personally filled them in in a way that matches the outcome you wanted to reach. When I encouraged you to fill the same gaps differently, the result unsurprisingly flipped. In other words, your thought experiment is not exclusively tied to the value of life.

In very extreme circumstances and after a due process.
Thanks to thousands of years of progress away from Judeo-Christian values, yes.

We don't just put them down because they're ill
Thanks to hundreds of years of progress away from Judeo-Christian values, yes.

There is something in that, but the value of human life is a factor too.
Of course it's a factor. It's just a minor factor, massively overshadowed by the ones that are actually important. Exactly the same as all your other attempts at generating an example.

I'm pretty sure suicide was illegal at one point because the view was that human life was sacred and shouldn't be extinguished, even by your own hand.
Yes, suicide is a sin, and thanks to Judeo-Christian values, we further destroyed the lives of those who felt they had already lost everything by throwing them in jail. Luckily, we no longer do that thanks to decades of evolving away from Judeo-Christian values. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14374296

I don't know how to "demonstrate" it.
And I don't know how to help you, because it defies all logic, and because when people tell you they believe otherwise, you tell them that they're lying.

Can you demonstrate that most people view human and animal life of equal value as you have asserted?
I said "many, if not most", and I'd argue that their first-hand testimony should count, but none of that is important. Your suggestion was that this belief is not only unpopular, but that it's complete tosh that nobody actually holds. That myth is what I'm really focusing on here, and I have demonstrated the contrary several times now.

I Googled it and she was fined £250, had she assaulted a human she would have been charged with a more serious offence.
We already discussed the fact that equivalence in law is not the same as lives having equal values. I have nothing to add on this.

There are certain Buddhist monks who I think believe that all life is equivalent and don't kill ants, outside of that most people don't regard all life as equivalent.
An alternative thought: people value life equally, but that value is overall pretty low, in isolation. That's why other factors take precedence without fail, as you've already observed in almost every example.

I took that to mean you couldn't choose. You have stated you view animal and human life as equivalent. I took that answer as an affirmation of that. If I'm misunderstood then you're free to clarify.
No, that's exactly it. I refused to answer and you chose to believe me on my worldview. She refused to answer, so you decided that she holds the same beliefs as you, but wouldn't admit it.

They may be more immune to the consequences because of their wealth and power, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to the same laws.
And the loopholes they use are not closed, despite being obvious. If anything, the loopholes are carefully crafted to make sure proles like you and I can't make use of them. "Being subject to the same laws" is not the same as "being treated equally by the law".
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 01:41:22 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2021, 02:24:25 PM »
Other factors always exist - they must, by definition, for a person who believes that human and animal lives are of equal value.
In real life they do, obviously. The point of a thought experiment is to make you think and examine your views.
You walk past a burning building, you know there's a human and an animal inside but you can only save one.
Which do you choose?
If you truly believe animal and human life is equivalent then it's flip a coin, or as you said it's unanswerable.
Or you might think "well if it's a human and and ant then clearly the human"
Or "Well if it's <pick human here> and a <pick species here> then..." - like all thought experiments you get to fill in the blanks a bit.
Your criticisms of the thought experiment are the exact point of it.

Quote
you chose to interpret the lack of a response as a result you've found convenient.
I thought it was interesting that she didn't answer. You answered.
And you did so in a way which makes me think you do believe what you claim.
She didn't. I haven't explored that further with her, it feels like more of a longer face to face conversation and I don't see her often.

Quote
Yes, suicide is a sin, and thanks to Judeo-Christian values, we further destroyed the lives of those who felt they had already lost everything by throwing them in jail.
I'd slightly dispute that a Christian would advocate suicide attempt being punishable by jail time, or punishable at all actually.
Lots of things are sinful but not illegal.

Quote
when people tell you they believe otherwise, you tell them that they're lying.
??? What? I haven't told anyone that. You are the second person who responded to my thought experiment, I've responded by saying that your response checks out with your claimed beliefs. My friend didn't answer and I didn't tell her anything. I have privately inferred the reason why she didn't answer but I certainly haven't called her a liar and if the chase arose I'd be willing to explore the whole topic with her further.

Quote
Your suggestion was that this belief is not only unpopular, but that it's complete tosh that nobody actually holds.
I'd suggest that few people hold that belief, I provided a link above (in an edit, so you may have missed it) which backs that up. And actually suggests that it's a learned attitude. But even if that's true, that research shows that it is the prevailing view amongst adults.

Quote
An alternative thought: people value life equally, but that value is overall pretty low, in isolation. That's why other factors take precedence without fail

I don't think that's what the research I've linked to indicates.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2021, 04:03:17 PM »
The point of a thought experiment is to make you think and examine your views.
Please stop trying to act like I'm not understanding you. I know what a thought experiment is, yours is just not very good from a data gathering point, because it leaves an unreasonable amount of uncontrolled factors which can completely overturn the result. Nobody is robotic enough to imagine a completely generic human and unspecified animal without assigning some values and characteristics to both of them.

Your criticisms of the thought experiment are the exact point of it.
So the very point of your experiment is to be so flawed that no data can be meaningfully gleaned from it.

I'd slightly dispute that a Christian would advocate suicide attempt being punishable by jail time, or punishable at all actually.
Lots of things are sinful but not illegal.
Spoken like a true Anglican/Protestant. It's a much less vile form of Christianity, granted, but that's exactly the kind of the evolution I'm talking about.

My friend didn't answer and I didn't tell her anything. I have privately inferred the reason why she didn't answer but I certainly haven't called her a liar
I'm glad you didn't say that to her face, but you were pretty clear earlier in this thread. You said that her claims are "bullshit", and that she "obviously" believes something else than what she had claimed:

Which is bullshit. No-one thinks that.
she dodged the question. Because of course she did. Obviously she values the human life greater than the animal. Everyone does.

I'd suggest that few people hold that belief, I provided a link above (in an edit, so you may have missed it) which backs that up. And actually suggests that it's a learned attitude. But even if that's true, that research shows that it is the prevailing view amongst adults.
[...]
I don't think that's what the research I've linked to indicates.
It's an interesting article, but it makes the same error as you have - it asserts without evidence that the choices people make are directly linked to how much they value the lives of each species, even when it outright explains the external factors that actually determined the decision.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 04:06:25 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6541
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2021, 04:29:32 PM »
Why is this hard for you to understand, AllAround?

Here try this: you can save only one of your two children.  Who are 5 year old twins.
Does making a choice mean you valued one over the other?  Fuck no!  Means you had to choose.  Period.  Done.  End of fucking definition.  Whatever metric brought you to the choice is irrelevant.  They are both of equal value to you, but uou still chose one over the other.

And in the case of animals or humans, well, if you gotta pick one, you pick based on whatever pre-engrained preferences are in your head.  Especially in a high stress situation.  And in the case of humans vs non-humans, humans vs other humans, or humans vs self... Its all about preference and emotional attachment.  And you are always more emotionally attached to your own species, children, and self than a dog.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.