We are supposedly speaking about people that can think, for whom "oh, it's not me, it's an unavoidable accident" is not an excuse for choosing the action that leads to something else's suffering and death.
Once again, see my analogy with cars. Producing cars isn't immoral just because some people suffer and die in car accidents.
What meaning does the word "immoral" carry if you use it toward someone's actions without assuming some purpose in their life?
I don't understand what you mean. Do you think human life has a purpose that makes killing humans immoral?
Does being skeptical toward your own beliefs equal to "not having an opinion about anything" to you?
Being skeptical to what degree?
What makes you think so?
(I see, you chose the long road, in spite of warnings)
Because the same is true in humans. And why is that actually relevant? If animals feel emotional suffering along with physical pain, even worse for the ethics of eating meat.
Nope. One calf per year.
So, since cows bear children for 9 months, they should be able to give milk for only 3 months after birth? So, most of the time, a cow isn't able to produce milk? Do you have some reference for that?
Besides, half of the calves are bulls, and bulls don't produce milk.
But they are necessary for milk production.
Science is based on the scientific method, and the scientific method is not something that you should expect to be able to use successfully without proper training.
I am aware of that. And that's partly why the peer review is important. If methodology is unreasonable, a paper shouldn't pass a peer review.
It's like deciding to play a lottery because everyone can win.
Well, not quite, since more you study, the chances of you being right increase very fast. That's why most of the scientific discoveries are made made by people who have been studying that particular field for years, if not decades.
Unfortunately, the quality of peer-reviewed "knowledge" reflects the quality of the peers.
And what's the alternative? Besides, the "younger" fields of science logically have lower entry levels. Not many people have studied the Croatian toponyms, so it's easier for me to be aware of the current research in the field than, for instance, to be aware of the current research in the field of, let's say, morphosyntax. To make a discovery in morphosyntax, you probably need to spend decades of learning to be aware of the current research in the field. To make a discovery about the Croatian toponyms, perhaps a few years of study is enough.
What is more important, though, is that neither it is a "mainstream neuroscience consensus", nor it supports your definition of sentience.
And what do you think it says actually?
Given the number of replies is relatively low, it's very, very difficult to read this as anything but "Some of y'all have points I can't counter and so I'll be avoiding them"
Well, no, it was 10 PM when I wrote the rest of the reply and then, when I refreshed the page, I saw there were more replies.
Looks like you're behind the times and have also never gone fishing as either fish feel pain OR all fish are incredibly competent at mimery as every single one does an amazing "I can't fucking breath and this is extremely unpleasant" when out of water. It's amazing.
Those are just reflexes. Make a hole in a fish's fin and it will continue swimming as if nothing happened. That's not what we would expect if fish felt pain.
You.. uh.. haven't lurked here for very long, have you?
Well, I've been here for almost a year, however, most of the time I've been here I was discussing either computer science or linguistics.
Actually, the study you linked shows that the "well-known thing" is true, and drinking milk statistically results in slightly lower incidence of osteoporosis than not drinking milk.
It doesn't. It simply says the data is inconclusive.Our conclusion is that in our meta-analysis of cohort studies, there was no overall association between milk intake and hip fracture risk in women but that more data are needed in men.
Forums are a good place for conversation.
Oh, you mean like the Flat Earth Society forum? Because it's incredibly easy to get misled there.
If someone has a set of allergies, etc that make a meatless diet difficult, I think it's reasonable to take that into account.
Again, point me to some qualified dietitian saying things like that. Such things are usually said by people who obviously aren't qualified to make such statements and who have an obvious incentive to make people believe that (like promoting the Paleo diet).
So, you're anti-abortion, but think that a large population isn't a matter of choice? Oh, do go on. This'll be fascinating.
Abortions don't play a significant role in the birth rate. Higher birth rates (and higher abortion rates) are associated with poverty. Poverty certainly isn't a matter of anybody's choice.
Bill Gates actually does do quite a lot of charity.
He does it now. When founding the Microsoft Corporation, he was thinking about his own gain, rather than how to improve the society.
Accumulation of capital is not threatened by charity work in one's free time.
Do you think that entrepreneurs even have free time? I am pretty sure they spend most of their "free time" thinking about their job. And that's the only way they can be innovating.
Wikipedia vs cowspiracy. The name of the latter alone ensures that it is reputable and free from bias, I'm sure.
Actually, Wikipedia later in that same article says the same thing Cowspiracy is saying:Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef
Yes, we can tell pretty easily if an animal is in pain. If you've spent any time about animals, it's reasonably obvious.
And how would you tell an animal wants to be killed?
Maybe a good way to figure this out would be talking to people and figuring out what they think about things rather than just making up reasons for why you think they believe what they believe and then telling them they're wrong.
Well, I've asked quite a few people in real life. The answers are nearly always something along the line of "We need to eat meat to get protein.".
This post is seven pages of single spaced text in one paragraph. You have pictures interspersed in the text that change the justification of the text every few lines, making it extremely visually distracting and difficult to read. I made it through about one page worth of text before I started getting a headache just from the formatting.
I am not sure what you mean. Which browser are you using? Some old version of Netfront?
You're entire post consists of strawman arguments.
It consists of the arguments I usually got in those three years I've been arguing for vegetarianism on the Internet forums. I am rather surprised nobody here brought up the "protein" argument, it's usually the first one. Perhaps that's because I didn't start a thread with "Vegetarianism is healthier, here are the studies that confirm that…", as I usually do. One "argument" that's rather common is "Hitler was a vegetarian!", but I don't think that really needs a response, that's why I didn't include it in the blog-post.
and a lot of these, including this canard about people touting the health benefits of meat is a thing that I actually don't think a lot of people believe
If people didn't believe in the health-benefits of eating meat, the movies like Earthlings would be effective at persuading people to become vegetarians, yet they aren't.
You may wish to consider this essay, the submission winner for a New York Times essay challenge on why it is ethical to eat meat, as judged by a panel of distinguished ethicists and philosophers on the subject, as a good starting point.
(If you designed the web-page, I will need to inform you that the text is completely ineligible in Safari 6.)
A well-written article, I must say. So, let's see, the core points of it are:
1. The statement of conversion.
2. That it's supposedly possible to produce meat in an ecological and ethical way, therefore it's not unethical for you to eat meat, because you didn't choose how the meat would be produced.
3. Having animals in agriculture supposedly fertilizes the soil.
4. If we stop eating meat, that would supposedly lead to the decrease in biodiversity.
5. Death is necessary as a part of nature.
So, let's see how can we respond to them:
1. People often think this gives credence to their arguments. In reality, it doesn't. It's no different than when a conspiracy theorist says
"The Moon does not exist. This is no lie. Until recently, I too believed the established and traditional view of the Moon.".
2. And if you knew, for instance, that some product was produced by human slaves, would you also consider ethical to buy it? And what makes you think having billions of cows graze would be more ecological than factory farming? You realize that we already have ecological problems probably caused by over-grazing?
3. How exactly? It doesn't matter if you try to fertilize the soil with dead plants or animal waste, right? Animals don't have anything like the Rhizobium bacteria in their bowels, right?
4. Not the way it's done today. This is, I guess, the problem of the seen versus unseen, if cows (for example) go extinct, we will all see that. When countless animal species die out due to the deforestation caused by animal agriculture, we don't see that.
5. That's just nonsense cliche, nothing to respond there.
(And, no, I don't think that article represents what the anti-vegetarians on the Internet believe. The video by MrRepzion I linked to on the blog-post is a much better example.)